Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel Versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Exacerbations in Moderate-to-Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

INTRODUCTION: Despite current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC treatment in patients with active, moderate-to-severe SLE from the US payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness model was developed using a probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach. Patients received Acthar Gel in an exacerbation state, and the outcomes were assessed at the end of a 3-month cycle for response achievement based on the probability of treatment success with Acthar Gel. Patients may sustain the response or experience an exacerbation. For the base case scenario, moderate-to-severe SLE was defined as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-2004 ≥ 20 or SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) ≥ 10 and clinical response was based on SLE responder index (SRI)-4. Clinical response, productivity loss, and utility were derived from a phase 4 SLE trial; cost and disutility estimates were sourced from the literature. RESULTS: From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $133,110 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $94,818 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $70,827 per QALY and $32,525 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Results from the sensitivity and scenario analyses are consistent with those of the base case model. CONCLUSIONS: Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for appropriate patients with moderate-to-severe SLE at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 over 2-3 years from the US payer and societal perspectives. Acthar Gel results in the reduction of direct medical and indirect costs.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab compared to standard clinical treatment with infliximab: study protocol for a randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group, phase IV study (the NOR-DRUM study).

BACKGROUND: Infliximab (INX) and other tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionised the treatment of several immune mediated inflammatory diseases. Still, many patients do not respond sufficiently to therapy or lose efficacy over time. The large interindividual variation in serum drug concentrations on standard doses and the development of anti-drug antibodies are thought to be major reasons for treatment failures. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), an individualised treatment strategy based on systematic assessments of serum drug concentrations, has been proposed as a clinical tool to optimise efficacy of INX treatment. TDM seems reasonable both from a clinical and an economical point of view, but the effectiveness of this treatment strategy has not yet been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. The NORwegian DRUg Monitoring study (NOR-DRUM) aims to assess the effectiveness of TDM, both with regard to the achievement of remission in patients starting INX treatment (part A) as well as to maintain disease control in patients on INX treatment (part B). METHODS: The NOR-DRUM study is a randomised, open, controlled, parallel-group, comparative, multi-centre, national, superiority, phase IV study with two separate parts, NOR-DRUM A and NOR-DRUM B. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease and psoriasis are included. In both study parts participants are randomised 1:1 to either TDM of infliximab (intervention group) or to standard treatment with infliximab without knowledge of drug levels or ADAb status (control group). NOR-DRUM A will include 400 patients starting INX therapy. The primary outcome is remission at 30 weeks. In NOR-DRUM B, 450 patients on maintenance treatment with INX will be included. The primary endpoint is occurrence of disease worsening during the 52-week study period. DISCUSSION: As the first trial to assess the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of TDM in patients receiving TNFi for a range of immune mediated inflammatory diseases, we hope that the NOR-DRUM study will contribute to the advancement of evidence based personalised treatment with biological medicines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03074656. Registered on 090317.

The effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy for wound healing after stoma reversal: a randomised control study (SR-PICO study).

BACKGROUND: Although the wound-healing period for purse-string closure (PSC) after stoma reversal is longer than that required for the primary closure method, the rate of wound infection is reduced. The application of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can reduce the healing period for many types of wounds. Herein, we describe a planned trial to test the hypothesis that NPWT can reduce the healing period for PSC after stoma reversal. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients undergoing stoma reversal will be recruited and allocated into intervention and control groups, with 1:1 randomisation. Patients in the control group will receive standard postsurgical wound care; patients in the intervention group will receive NPWT using the PICO™ system. The target sample size will be 38 patients, as this will provide 80% power at the 5% level of significance to detect a 7-day reduction in the wound-healing period in the intervention group compared to that in the control group. The primary endpoint will be the duration to wound healing, defined as the time to nearly complete epithelisation of the wound, without any discharge or surgical site infection (SSI). Secondary endpoints will be the SSI rate, length of postoperative hospital stay, number of wound dressings and visits to the hospital for wound dressing after discharge, total cost of wound dressings, and patient and observer scar assessment scale scores. DISCUSSION: The results of this planned randomised controlled study will clarify the role of NPWT in patients undergoing stoma reversal and strengthen the rationale for choosing a dressing technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0004063. Registered on 6 June 2019.

Comparative Effectiveness of Local Application of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Mupirocin Ointment, and Normal Saline for the Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis-related Infections (COSMO-PD Trial): a multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled protocol.

BACKGROUND: Current international guidelines recommend the use of a daily topical exit-site antimicrobial to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections. Although nonantibiotic-based therapies are appealing because they may limit antimicrobial resistance, no controlled trials have been conducted to compare topical antimicrobial agents with usual exit-site care for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population. We propose a controlled three-arm trial to examine the efficacy and safety of a daily chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch versus mupirocin ointment versus usual exit-site care with normal saline for the prevention of PD-related infections. METHODS/DESIGNS: This study is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, clinical trial. Adult patients aged 18 years or older who have end-stage kidney disease and are undergoing PD will be enrolled at three PD Centers in Thailand. A total of 354 PD patients will be randomly assigned to either the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch, mupirocin ointment, or usual exit-site care with normal saline dressing according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence. Participants will be followed until discontinuation of PD or completion of 24 months. The primary study outcomes are time to first PD-related infection (exit-site/tunnel infection or peritonitis) event and the overall difference in PD-related infection rates between study arms. Secondary study outcomes will include (i) the rate of infection-related catheter removal and PD technique failure, (ii) rate of nasal and exit-site Staphylococcus aureus colonization, (iii) healthcare costs, and (iv) skin reactions and adverse events. We plan to conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside the trial from the perspectives of patients and society. A Markov simulation model will be used to estimate the total cost and health outcome in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 20-year time horizon. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Thai Baht and U.S. dollars per QALYs gained will be illustrated. A series of probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the cost-utility analysis findings. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide new clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to support the best strategy for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02547103. Registered on September 11, 2015.

On strategic choices faced by large pharmaceutical laboratories and their effect on innovation risk under fuzzy conditions.

OBJECTIVES: We develop a fuzzy evaluation model that provides managers at different responsibility levels in pharmaceutical laboratories with a rich picture of their innovation risk as well as that of competitors. This would help them take better strategic decisions around the management of their present and future portfolio of clinical trials in an uncertain environment. Through three structured fuzzy inference systems (FISs), the model evaluates the overall innovation risk of the laboratories by capturing the financial and pipeline sides of the risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three FISs, based on the Mamdani model, determine the level of innovation risk of large pharmaceutical laboratories according to their strategic choices. Two subsystems measure different aspects of innovation risk while the third one builds on the results of the previous two. In all of them, both the partitions of the variables and the rules of the knowledge base are agreed through an innovative 2-tuple-based method. With the aid of experts, we have embedded knowledge into the FIS and later validated the model. RESULTS: In an empirical application of the proposed methodology, we evaluate a sample of 31 large pharmaceutical laboratories in the period 2008-2013. Depending on the relative weight of the two subsystems in the first layer (capturing the financial and the pipeline sides of innovation risk), we estimate the overall risk. Comparisons across laboratories are made and graphical surfaces are analyzed in order to interpret our results. We have also run regressions to better understand the implications of our results. CONCLUSIONS: The main contribution of this work is the development of an innovative fuzzy evaluation model that is useful for analyzing the innovation risk characteristics of large pharmaceutical laboratories given their strategic choices. The methodology is valid for carrying out a systematic analysis of the potential for developing new drugs over time and in a stable manner while managing the risks involved. We provide all the necessary tools and datasets to facilitate the replication of our system, which also may be easily applied to other settings.

AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study: Rationale and design.

INTRODUCTION: Reimbursement of amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) is lagging due to the lack of definitive evidence on its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. The Amyloid Imaging to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease-Diagnostic and Patient Management Study (AMYPAD-DPMS) is designed to fill this gap. METHODS: AMYPAD-DPMS is a phase 4, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Nine hundred patients with subjective cognitive decline plus, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia possibly due to Alzheimer's disease will be randomized to ARM1, amyloid-PET performed early in the diagnostic workup; ARM2, amyloid-PET performed after 8 months; and ARM3, amyloid-PET performed whenever the physician chooses to do so. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is the difference between ARM1 and ARM2 in the proportion of patients receiving a very-high-confidence etiologic diagnosis after 3 months. Secondary endpoints address diagnosis and diagnostic confidence, diagnostic/therapeutic management, health economics and patient-related outcomes, and methods for image quantitation. EXPECTED IMPACTS: AMYPAD-DPMS will supply physicians and health care payers with real-world data to plan management decisions.

Assessment of the effect of addition of 24 hours of oral tranexamic acid post-operatively to a single intraoperative intravenous dose of tranexamic acid on calculated blood loss following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (TRAC-24): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While it is has been proven that tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), there is little published evidence on the use of TXA beyond 3 h post-operatively. Most blood loss occurs after wound closure and the primary aim of this study is to determine if the use of oral TXA post-operatively for up to 24 h will reduce calculated blood loss at 48 h beyond an intra-operative intravenous bolus alone following primary THA and TKA. To date, most TXA studies have excluded patients with a history of thromboembolic disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a phase IV, single-centred, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to one of three groups: group 1, an intravenous (IV) bolus of TXA peri-operatively plus oral TXA post-operatively for 24 h; group 2, an IV bolus of TXA peri-operatively or group 3, standard care (no TXA). Eligible participants, including those with a history of thromboembolic disease, are allocated to these groups with a 2:2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome is the indirectly calculated blood loss 48 h after surgery. Researchers and patients are not blinded to the treatment; however, staff processing blood samples are. Originally 1166 participants were required to complete this study, 583 THA and 583 TKA. However, following an interim analysis after 100 THA and 100 TKA participants had been recruited to the study, the data monitoring ethics committee recommended stopping group 3 (standard care). DISCUSSION: TRAC-24 will help to determine whether an extended TXA dosing regimen can further reduce blood loss following primary THA and TKA. By including patients with a history of thromboembolic disease, this study will add to our understanding of the safety profile of TXA in this clinical situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN58790500 . Registered on 3 June 2016, EudraCT: 2015-002661-36.

Two versus five days of antibiotics after appendectomy for complex acute appendicitis (APPIC): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery. In patients with a complex appendicitis, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended after appendectomy. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics. Guidelines propose 3 to 7 days of treatment, but shorter courses may be as effective in the prevention of infectious complications. At the same time, the global issue of increasing antimicrobial resistance urges for optimization of antibiotic strategies. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short course (48 h) of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to current standard practice of 5 days. METHODS: Patients of 8 years and older undergoing appendectomy for acute complex appendicitis - defined as a gangrenous and/or perforated appendicitis or appendicitis in presence of an abscess - are eligible for inclusion. Immunocompromised or pregnant patients are excluded, as well as patients with a contraindication to the study antibiotics. In total, 1066 patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental treatment arm (48 h of postoperative intravenously administered (IV) antibiotics) or the control arm (5 days of postoperative IV antibiotics). After discharge from the hospital, patients participate in a productivity-cost-questionnaire at 4 weeks and a standardized telephone follow-up at 90 days after appendectomy. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of infectious complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI), and mortality within 90 days after appendectomy. Secondary outcomes include IAA, SSI, restart of antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), reoperation, percutaneous drainage, readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the primary endpoint rate is set at 7.5% (one-sided test at ɑ 0.025). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on whether 48 h of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to a standard course of 5 days of antibiotics. If non-inferiority is established, longer intravenous administration following appendectomy for complex appendicitis can be abandoned, and guidelines need to be adjusted accordingly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6128 . Registered on 20 December 2016.

Phase IV Studies: Some Insights, Clarifications, and Issues.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need to face regulatory aspects as well as ethics and scientific ones in the pharmaceutical research phase after the authorization of a drug. Traditionally, Phase IV studies, after the authorization of a drug to be marketed by the Competent Authority like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (in Europe, European Medicine Agency - EMA- through National Procedures or Community Procedures) have been considered mainly aimed to the assessment of the new drug safety profile. However, the sample size calculation for such aim is still an open issue. Moreover, the benefit/risk assessment is a compelling global need. METHODS: This editorial aims to give a fairly exhaustive overview of the main topics currently present in the pharmaceutical research phase after the authorization of a drug. FDA and EMA guidelines are considered under a comparative perspective with a focus on the perspective of "Post Authorization Safety Studies (PASS)" and "Post Authorization Efficacy Studies (PAES)" with critical considerations. Then, the approach of "Explanatory Trials" and "Pragmatic Trials" is proposed under the horizon of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). CONCLUSION: Critical remarks are raised against the pure commercial perspective in the proposal of PASS and PAES and on the design of registries which should be planned with relevant objectives to be pursued by appropriate statistical analyses reported in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) of the study protocol. Finally, a particular focus is placed on the work of the Ethical Committees regarding the approval of the observational studies on the safety and the efficacy of the drugs in their pragmatic clinical use.

Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.

Assessment of clinical effect and treatment quality of immediate-release carvedilol-IR versus SLOW release carvedilol-SR in Heart Failure patients (SLOW-HF): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carvedilol is a non-selective, third-generation beta-blocker and is one of the cornerstones for treatment for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, due to its short half-life, immediate-release carvedilol (IR) needs to be prescribed twice a day. Recently, slow-release carvedilol (SR) has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether carvedilol-SR is non-inferior to standard carvedilol-IR in terms of its clinical efficacy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with stable HFrEF will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the carvedilol-SR group (160 patients) and the carvedilol-IR group (160 patients). Patients aged ≥ 20 years, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, N-terminal pro B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥ 125 pg/ml or BNP ≥ 35 pg/ml, who are clinically stable and have no evidence of congestion or volume retention, will be eligible. After randomization, patients will be followed up for 6 months. The primary endpoint is the change in NT-proBNP level from baseline to the study end. The secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients with NT-proBNP increment > 10% from baseline, composite of all-cause mortality and readmission, mortality rate, readmission rate, changes in blood pressure, quality of life, and drug compliance. DISCUSSIONS: The SLOW-HF trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label, phase-IV, multicenter study to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of carvedilol-SR compared to carvedilol-IR in HFrEF patients. If carvedilol-SR proves to be non-inferior to carvedilol-IR, a once-daily prescription of carvedilol may be recommended for patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03209180 . Registered on 6 July 2017.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Using routinely recorded data in the UK to assess outcomes in a randomised controlled trial: The Trials of Access.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. METHODS: Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. PARTICIPANTS: 98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. RESULTS: Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.

Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Phase II-IV Clinical Trials in China.

PURPOSE: To explore the readability and content integrity of informed consent forms (ICFs) used in China and to compare the quality of Chinese local ICFs with that of international ICFs. METHODS: The length, readability and content of 155 consent documents from phase II-IV drug clinical trials from the Third Xiangya Hospital Ethics Committee from November 2009 to January 2015 were evaluated. Reading difficulty was tested using a readability formula adapted for the Chinese language. An ICF checklist containing 27 required elements was successfully constructed to evaluate content integrity. The description of alternatives to participation was assessed. The quality of ICFs from different sponsorships were also compared. RESULTS: Among the 155 evaluable trials, the ICFs had a median length of 5286 words, corresponding to 7 pages. The median readability score was 4.31 (4.02-4.41), with 63.9% at the 2nd level and 36.1% at the 3rd level. Five of the 27 elements were frequently neglected. The average score for the description of alternatives to participation was 1.06, and 27.7% of the ICFs did not mention any alternatives. Compared with Chinese local ICFs, international ICFs were longer, more readable and contained more of the required elements (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The ICFs used in China were difficult to read for most participants. These forms had poor description of alternatives to participation, and failed to provide a high degree of information disclosure, including an explanation of informed consent, follow-up processing of the data/sample, inclusion/exclusion criteria, double blinding, and unpredictable risks. International ICFs had better readability and content integrity than Chinese local ICFs. More efforts should thus be made to improve the quality of consent documents in China.

Exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of human data available to inform evidence-based treatment for illness during pregnancy has led to calls for greater inclusion of pregnant women in research, but the extent of their current representation is poorly characterized. Our objective was to measure the current exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials as a baseline for future comparison. METHODS: We compiled data from studies enrolling women of childbearing potential posted on www.ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 October 2011 and 31 January 2012. The review was limited to open United States-based phase IV interventional studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry evaluating treatment of conditions that may be experienced by but are not limited to pregnant women and did not involve a medication classified as potentially teratogenic. If there was no mention of pregnancy in the inclusion or exclusion criteria, we contacted a study representative to confirm that pregnant women could be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 558 qualifying industry-sponsored studies, five (1%) were designed specifically for pregnant women. Of 367 phase IV clinical trials with verified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 348 (95%) excluded pregnant women and 19 (5%) did not. CONCLUSION: We found the exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials to be common practice. Moving beyond reflexive exclusion and developing thoughtful criteria for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research would likely advance the evidence base to inform treatment decisions during pregnancy and lead to better health outcomes for women and children.

[Critical approach to clinical trials: difficulties of such research in Lebanon]. / Approche critique des essais thérapeutiques : difficultés de ce type de recherche au Liban.

Clinical trials represent new steps in the progress of knowledge. Yet in spite of all the norms, guidelines and good clinical practices established since 1947, trials are still being published which seem to be, but in fact are not, well-conducted. Experts in planning and analyzing trial results have determined the factors that may affect clinical investigations at different phases. Among articles published over the last 30 years selected from Medline, one-third were biased. These biased articles were cited 2034 times. Clinical trials are designed to improve the treatment of particular diseases and to reduce mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless, other factors still appear to have an essential influence on the way clinical trials are conducted. It is surprising to see how often trials conclude that the drug of the pharmaceutical company initiating the study or funding it has the same efficiency, and sometimes is more efficient, than the drug it is being judged against. Perhaps, journals should objectively describe clinical trial protocols before publishing their results. Poor populations are still being abused by the pharmaceutical industry and more thought should be given to the notions of volunteers participating in trials and the compensation they receive. In Lebanon, the majority of these difficulties are encountered not only in multicenter international trials but are also seen in the lack of requirements for minimum safety measures and ethical standards when conducting national and regional trials. These insufficiencies raise important questions concerning their real objective.