Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies.

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status. METHODS: We explored all interventional studies sponsored by Rennes University Hospital identified on the French Open Science Monitor which tracks trials registered on EUCTR or clinicaltrials.gov, and provides an automatic assessment of the reporting of results. For each study, we ascertained the actual reporting of results using systematic searches on the hospital internal database, bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed), and by contacting all principal investigators (PIs). We describe several features (including total budget and numbers of trial participants) of the studies that did not report any results. RESULTS: The French Open Science Monitor identified 93 interventional studies, among which 10 (11%) reported results. In contrast, our survey identified 36 studies (39%) reporting primary analysis results and an additional 18 (19%) reporting results for secondary analyses (without results for their primary analysis). The overall budget for studies that did not report any results was estimated to be €5,051,253 for a total of 6,735 trial participants. The most frequent reasons for the absence of results reported by PIs were lack of time for 18 (42%), and logistic difficulties (e.g. delay in obtaining results or another blocking factor) for 12 (28%). An association was found between non-publication and negative results (adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.70, 95% Confidence Interval [1.67;14.11]). CONCLUSIONS: Even allowing for the fact that automatic searches underestimate the number of studies with published results, the level of reporting was disappointingly low. This amounts to a waste of trial participants' implication and money. Corrective actions are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/q5hcs.

Diversity of US participants in AstraZeneca-sponsored clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To develop medicines that are safe and efficacious to all patients, clinical trials must enroll appropriate target populations, but imbalances related to race, ethnicity and sex have been reported. A comprehensive analysis and improvement in understanding representativeness of patient enrollment in industry-sponsored trials are key public health needs. METHODS: We assessed race/ethnicity and sex representation in AstraZeneca (AZ)-sponsored clinical trials in the United States (US) from 2010 to 2022, compared with the 2019 US Census. RESULTS: In total, 246 trials representing 95,372 patients with complete race/ethnicity and sex records were analyzed. The proportions of different race/ethnicity subgroups in AZ-sponsored clinical trials and the US Census were similar (White: 69.5% vs 60.1%, Black or African American: 13.3% vs 12.5%, Asian: 1.8% vs 5.8%, Hispanic: 14.4% vs 18.5%). We also observed parity in the proportions of males and females between AZ clinical trials and US Census (males: 52.4% vs 49.2%, females: 47.6% vs 50.8%). Comparisons of four distinct therapy areas within AZ (Respiratory and Immunology [R&I]; Cardiovascular, Renal, and Metabolism [CVRM]; Solid Tumors; and Hematological Malignancies), including by trial phases, revealed greater variability, with proportions observed above and below US Census levels. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides the first detailed insights into the representativeness of AZ trials. Overall, the proportions of different race/ethnicity and sex subgroups in AZ-sponsored clinical trials were broadly aligned with the US Census. We outline some of AZ's planned health equity initiatives that are intended to continue to improve equitable patient enrollment.

Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage measures in rehabilitation clinical trials: Lessons learned in recruitment.

PURPOSE: The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) measures the relative disadvantage of an individual or social network using US Census indicators. Although a strong re-hospitalization predictor, ADI has not been routinely incorporated into rehabilitation research. The purposes of this paper are to examine the use of ADI related to study recruitment, association with carepartner psychosocial factors, and recruitment strategies to increase participant diversity. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of baseline data from a pilot stroke carepartner-integrated therapy trial. Participants were 32 carepartners (N = 32; 62.5 % female; mean age 57.8 ± 13.0 years) and stroke survivors (mean age (60.6 ± 14.2) residing in an urban setting. Measures included ADI, Bakas Caregiver Outcome Scale, Caregiver Strain Index, and Family Assessment Device. RESULTS: Most carepartners were Non-Hispanic White participants (61.3 %), part or fully employed (43 %), with >$50,000 (67.7 %) income, and all had some college education. Most stroke survivors were Non-Hispanic White participants (56.3 %) with some college (81.3 %). Median ADI state deciles were 3.0 (interquartile range 1.5-5, range 1-9), and mean national percentiles were 41.7 ± 23.5 with only 6.3 % of participants from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. For the more disadvantaged half of the state deciles, the majority were Black or Asian participants. No ADI and carepartner factors were statistically related. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ADI data highlighted a recruitment gap in this stroke study, lacking the inclusivity of participants from disadvantaged neighborhoods and with lower education. Using social determinants of health indicators to identify underrepresented neighborhoods may inform recruitment methods to target marginalized populations and broaden the generalizability of clinical trials.

Disparities in clinical trial participation in ovarian cancer: A real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND: Significant disparities exist in clinical trial participation in non-gynecologic cancers, but little is known about disparities in ovarian cancer trial participation. Our objective was to examine patient, sociodemographic (race/ethnicity, insurance), cancer, and health system factors associated with clinical trial participation in ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2011 to 2021, using a real-world electronic health record derived database, representing around 800 sites of care in US academic and community practices. We used multivariable Poisson regression modeling to analyze the association of ever participating in an ovarian cancer clinical drug trial with patient, sociodemographic, health system, and cancer factors. RESULTS: Of the 7540 patients with ovarian cancer, 5.0% (95% CI 4.5-5.5) ever participated in a clinical drug trial. Patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were 71% less likely to participate in clinical trials (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.61) than non-Hispanic patients, and patients whose race was unknown or other than Black or White were 40% less likely to participate in clinical trials (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89). Patients who had Medicaid insurance were 51% less likely (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.87) and those with Medicare were 32% (RR 0.48-0.97) less likely to participate in clinical trials than privately-insured patients. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort study, only 5% of patients with ovarian cancer participated in clinical drug trials. Interventions are needed to decrease race, ethnicity, and insurance disparities in clinical trial participation.

Racial and ethnic underrepresentation in dermatology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Including participants of diverse racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials is important to reduce disparities and promote health care equity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate racial and ethnic representation in dermatology clinical trials. METHODS: Participant data from dermatology trials completed in the United States from 2017 to 2021 from ClinicalTrials.gov were compared to census data to determine if minority groups were represented at rates that reflect population demographics. Participation was compared with prevalence rates for the most underrepresented racial group. RESULTS: Of 246 trials that met inclusion criteria, 87.4% (215) reported racial data. Compared to census data, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 2 or more races were underrepresented. Hispanic or Latinos were an underrepresented ethnic group. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited to ClinicalTrials.gov registered studies that fell within search parameters. Race reporting methods were not specified. Detailed analysis was only performed for the most underrepresented racial group. CONCLUSION: Certain minority groups were underrepresented in dermatology trials. Black/African Americans were most underrepresented and underrepresented even when accounting for prevalence rates. Trial representation that accurately reflects population demographics and subgroup prevalence rates can help reduce health inequity, improve clinical understanding, and enhance treatment access for the growing diverse population.

A scoping review on patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations of precision medicine based on basket trials.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable challenges in the economic evaluation of precision medicines have been mentioned in previous studies. However, they have not addressed how an economic assessment would be conducted based on basket trials (novel studies for evaluation of precision medicine effects) in which the included populations have specific biomarkers and various cancers. Since basket trial populations have remarkable heterogeneity, this study aims to investigate the concept of heterogeneity and specific method(s) for considering it in economic evaluations through guidelines and studies that could be applicable in economic evaluation based on basket trials. AREA COVERED: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google to find studies and pharmacoeconomics guidelines. The inclusion criteria included subjects of patient heterogeneity and suggested explicit method(s). Thirty-nine guidelines and 43 studies were included and evaluated. None of these materials mentioned disease types in a target population as a factor causing heterogeneity. Moreover, in economic evaluations, patient heterogeneity has been considered with four general approaches subgroup analysis, individual-based models, sensitivity analysis, and regression models. EXPERT OPINION: Type of disease is not considered a contributing factor in population heterogeneity, and the probable appropriate method for this issue could be individual-based models.

Association of Remote Technology Use and Other Decentralization Tools With Patient Likelihood to Enroll in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Logistical challenges such as travel time and distance to a clinical trial site can be a barrier to patient participation. The association of remote technology use and other decentralization tools that can reduce these barriers with likelihood to enroll in cancer trials is not well understood. Objective: To assess the association of remote technology and other decentralization tools used to reduce participation-related time and travel with the likelihood to enroll in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between July 6 and September 8, 2021, a 41-question, cross-sectional, internet-based survey was administered to patients with cancer and survivors of cancer in the US who had been diagnosed with or treated for cancer in the past 7 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Increase in self-reported likelihood to enroll in cancer clinical trials that use remote technology and other decentralization tools to decrease the need for travel to the trial site. Results: There were 1183 survey respondents, with a mean (SD) age of 58.2 (12.5) years. Respondents self-reported their gender, race and ethnicity, cancer type, and treatment status. Of the 1183 respondents, 848 (72%) were female, 296 (25%) were male, 8 (1%) were other/nonbinary, and 31 (3%) declined to answer. With regard to race, 28 respondents (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 25 (2%) were Asian, 234 (20%) were Black or African American, 20 (2%) were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 825 (70%) were White, and 51 (4%) declined to answer. With regard to ethnicity, 115 respondents (10%) were Hispanic, Latino/Latina, or of Spanish origin, whereas 1017 (86%) were not and 51 (4%) declined to answer. Regarding cancer type and treatment status, 483 respondents (41%) either had or had survived breast cancer and 325 (28%) were being treated for cancer during the survey period. Individuals older than 55 years were more likely to say that they would only participate in trials no farther from their home than their regular care health care practitioner compared with younger respondents (26% vs 16%, respectively; P = .02). Higher-income earners (ie, those in households earning >$125 000/y) were significantly more likely than lower-income earners (ie, those in households earning <$70 000/y) to say they would participate in trials requiring additional effort (62% vs 41%, respectively; P = .03). If given the opportunity to enroll in a cancer clinical trial that required travel farther than their regular care, a majority of respondents (range, 60%-85%) indicated that they would be more likely to participate if the trial used remote technology and other tools to decrease the need for travel to a trial site. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the survey findings suggest that cancer clinical trials leveraging remote technology and decentralization tools to reduce patient time and travel burden associated with participation may increase the patient consent rate.

Why are emerging countries popular for clinical research?

BACKGROUND: The business of clinical research has changed in the past two decades, shifting from industrialised Western countries to so-called emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. An appraisal of the trends could identify associated factors that may have implications for the local populations and their endemic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To identify potential reasons why emerging countries have become attractive places for international sponsors to conduct their clinical trials. METHODS: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, the National Health Research Database and the Nigeria Clinical Trials Registry, trend data on clinical research development were determined for two emerging African markets, Nigeria and South Africa (SA), from 2010 to 2018. Also, health data on the two countries from the fact sheets of health statistics of the World Health Organization were compared, as well as regulatory and ethical conditions. Available data were analysed using descriptive statistics and trend analysis. RESULTS: The impact of globalisation is evident from the upward trend in clinical trials in SA before 2010, and the clear downward trend thereafter. One reason for this change could be the alignment of SA's regulatory and ethical frameworks with the Western world. In contrast, the upward trend is only just beginning in Nigeria, with the introduction of ethical/regulatory frameworks, and supportive institutions making the business of clinical research more attractive on an international level. Although the number of international and local sponsors increased in Nigeria from 2010 to 2018, only the latter increased in SA, with the former decreasing over the same period. Overall, there is a mismatch between country-specific diseases and the drugs being tested, to the extent that leprosy, which is endemic in Nigeria, and tuberculosis in SA were not in the list of top 10 study areas in either country. CONCLUSIONS: The globalisation trend is evident in the clinical trials business, but cannot be generalised to all emerging countries. Timing and intensity vary from country to country relative to factors that advance the existing profit-orientated business models of the sponsors. Furthermore, various diseases have been localised, which entails a diversely increasing need for research.

U.S. racial and ethnic participation in global clinical trials by therapeutic areas.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The discussion about health equity in the United States frequently involves concerns over racial and ethnic minority under-representation in clinical trials and particularly in trials conducted in support of product approvals. The FDA has long worked to encourage diverse participation in clinical trials and through its Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to make trial demographic data more accessible and transparent. We conducted a demographic study of U.S. participants in clinical trials for FDA-approved new drugs (new molecular entities [NMEs], and original Biologics License Applications [BLAs]) from 2015 to 2019, as reported in DTS database with a purpose of understanding the extent to which U.S.-based trials used to support product approvals represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population by therapeutic area. METHODS: Participant-level trial data were collected by accessing the FDA electronic common technical document (eCTD), for the applications used to publish each Snapshot. The therapeutic area (TA) for each drug was determined by review division assignment. The demographic data were analysed and compared to U.S. census data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We examined 102,596 U.S. participants in trials of new drugs that were approved and presented in Drug Trials Snapshots between 2015 and 2019. White participation ranged from 51% in psychiatric trials to 90% in cardiovascular (CV) trials; Black or African American participation ranged from 5% in medical imaging to 45% in psychiatric trials; Asian participation ranged from 0.75% in CV to 4% in dermatologic trials; and Hispanic or Latino participation ranged from 1% in medical imaging to 22% in infectious diseases and gastroenterology trials. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our data showed variable representation of racial and ethnic minorities across therapeutic areas at the U.S. sites. Blacks or African Americans were represented at or above U.S. census estimates across most therapeutic areas, while Asians and American Indian or Alaska Natives were consistently underrepresented. Hispanic or Latino participation across most therapeutic areas was below U.S. census estimates, however, more variable, and a sizable proportion of data was missing. The next step is a comparison of trial participation based on disease prevalence and epidemiology, which is a more accurate assessment of trial diversity.

Not immune to inequity: minority under-representation in immunotherapy trials for breast and gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the participation of minority women in clinical trials using immunologic agents for breast and gynecologic cancers. METHODS: A retrospective review of completed clinical trials involving immunotherapy for breast and gynecologic cancers was performed. Completed trials were examined for data on race, tumor type, and start year. Minority enrollment was stratified by tumor site. Based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention age-adjusted incidence for race, expected and observed ratios of racial participation were calculated and compared using Χ2 testing, p≤0.05. RESULTS: A total of 53 completed immunotherapy clinical trials involving 8820 patients were reviewed. Breast cancer trials were most common (n=24) and involved the most patients (n=6248, 71%). Racial breakdown was provided in 41 studies (77%) for a total of 7201 patients. Race reporting was lowest in uterine (n=4, 67%) and cervical cancer trials (n=6, 67%), and highest in ovarian cancer trials (n=12, 86%). White patients comprised 70% (n=5022) of all the patients included. Only 5% of patients involved were black (n=339), and 83% of these patients (n=282) were enrolled in breast cancer trials. Observed enrollment of black women was 32-fold lower for ovarian, 19-fold lower for cervical, 15-fold lower for uterine, and 11-fold lower for breast cancer than expected. While all trials reported race between 2013 and 2015, no consistent trend was seen towards increasing race reporting or in enrollment of black patients over time. CONCLUSION: Racial disparities exist in clinical trials evaluating immunologic agents for breast and gynecologic cancers. Recruitment of black women is particularly low. In order to address inequity in outcomes for these cancers, it is crucial that significant attention be directed towards minority representation in immuno-oncologic clinical trials.

Patient Participation in Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs and Biologics Preceding Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Importance: Several studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development. Objective: To estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measure: The prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval. Results: A total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Clinical Trial Access in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Case Study on India.

The global burden of cancer is estimated to be more than 20 million cases by 2030, the majority occurring in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). LMICs account for 64% of global cancer deaths and 80% of disability-adjusted-life-years lost. Despite this, only 5% of the global cancer resources are spent in LMICs causing a high mortality-to-income ratio. Despite the burgeoning number of clinical trials in the HICs, there are several reasons to conduct clinical trials in LMICs. In this commentary, we discuss the problem of access to clinical trials in LMICs using India as a case study.

Does biomarker use in oncology improve clinical trial failure risk? A large-scale analysis.

PURPOSE: To date there has not been an extensive analysis of the outcomes of biomarker use in oncology. METHODS: Data were pooled across four indications in oncology drawing upon trial outcomes from www.clinicaltrials.gov: breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma and colorectal cancer from 1998 to 2017. We compared the likelihood drugs would progress through the stages of clinical trial testing to approval based on biomarker status. This was done with multi-state Markov models, tools that describe the stochastic process in which subjects move among a finite number of states. RESULTS: Over 10000 trials were screened, which yielded 745 drugs. The inclusion of biomarker status as a covariate significantly improved the fit of the Markov model in describing the drug trajectories through clinical trial testing stages. Hazard ratios based on the Markov models revealed the likelihood of drug approval with biomarkers having nearly a fivefold increase for all indications combined. A 12, 8 and 7-fold hazard ratio was observed for breast cancer, melanoma and NSCLC, respectively. Markov models with exploratory biomarkers outperformed Markov models with no biomarkers. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic statistical evidence that biomarkers clearly increase clinical trial success rates in three different indications in oncology. Also, exploratory biomarkers, long before they are properly validated, appear to improve success rates in oncology. This supports early and aggressive adoption of biomarkers in oncology clinical trials.