The state and future of pediatric research-an introductory overview : The state and future of pediatric research series.

IMPACT: This is an introduction to an article series devoted to the current state and future of pediatric research. The role of public-private partnerships, influencing factors, challenges, and recent trends in pediatric research are described, with emphasis on funding, drug and device development, physician-scientist training, and diversity. Potential solutions and advocacy opportunities are discussed.

Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs With Opioid Prescribing and Overdose in Adolescents and Young Adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Prescription opioid use is associated with substance-related adverse outcomes among adolescents and young adults through a pathway of prescribing, diversion and misuse, and addiction and overdose. Assessing the effect of current prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) on opioid prescribing and overdoses will further inform strategies to reduce opioid-related harms. METHODS: We performed interrupted time series analyses to measure the association between state-level implementation of PDMPs with annual opioid prescribing and opioid-related overdoses in adolescents (13 to 18 years) and young adults (19 to 25 years) between 2008 and 2019. We focused on PDMPs that included mandatory reviews by providers. Data were obtained from a commercial insurance company. RESULTS: Among 9,344,504 adolescents and young adults, 1,405,382 (15.0%) had a dispensed opioid prescription, and 6,262 (0.1%) received treatment for an opioid-related overdose. Mandated PDMP review was associated with a 4.2% (95% CI, 1.9% to 6.4%) reduction in annual opioid dispensations among adolescents and a 7.8% (95% CI, 4.7% to 10.9%) annual reduction among young adults. For opioid-related overdoses, mandated PDMP review was associated with a 16.1% (95% CI, 3.8 to 26.7) and 15.9% (95% CI, 7.6 to 23.4) reduction in annual opioid overdoses for adolescents and young adults, respectively. CONCLUSION: PDMPs were associated with sustained reductions in opioid prescribing and overdoses in adolescents and young adults. Although these findings support the value of mandated PDMPs as part of ongoing strategies to reduce opioid overdoses, further studies with prospective study designs are needed to characterize the effect of these programs fully.

Resource utilization among children presenting with cannabis poisonings in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Exploratory pediatric cannabis poisonings are increasing. The aim of this study is to provide a national assessment of the frequency and trends of diagnostic testing and procedures in the evaluation of pediatric exploratory cannabis poisonings. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of the Pediatric Health Information Systems database involving all cases of cannabis poisoning for children age 0-10 years between 1/2016 and 12/2021. Cannabis poisoning trends were assessed using a negative binomial regression model. A new variable named "ancillary testing" was created to isolate testing that would not confirm the diagnosis of cannabis poisoning or be used to exclude co-ingestion of acetaminophen or aspirin. Ancillary testing was assessed with regression analyses, with ancillary testing as the outcomes and year as the predictor, to assess trends over time. RESULTS: A total of 2001 cannabis exposures among 1999 children were included. Cannabis exposures per 100,000 ED visits increased 68.7% (95% CI, 50.3, 89.3) annually. There was a median of 4 (IQR 2.0, 6.0) diagnostic tests performed per encounter. 64.5% of encounters received blood tests, 28.8% received a CT scan, and 2.4% received a lumbar puncture. Compared to White individuals, Black individuals were more likely to receive ancillary testing (OR 1.52 [95% CI, 1.23, 1.89]). Compared to those 2-6 years, those <2 years were more likely to receive ancillary testing (OR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.19, 2.02). We found no significant annual change in the odds of receiving ancillary testing (OR 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97, 1.12]). CONCLUSIONS: We found no change in the proportion of encounters associated with ancillary testing, despite increases in exploratory cannabis poisonings over the study period. Given the increasing rate of pediatric cannabis poisonings, emergency providers should consider this diagnosis early in the evaluation of a pediatric patient with acute change in mental status. While earlier use of urine drug screening may reduce ancillary testing and invasive procedures, even a positive urine drug screen does not rule out alternative pathologies and should not replace a thoughtful evaluation.

Reporting of clinical trial safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov for FDA-approved drugs: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events identified during clinical trials can be important early indicators of drug safety, but complete and timely data on safety results have historically been difficult to access. The aim was to compare the availability, completeness, and concordance of safety results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: We analyzed clinical trials used in the Food and Drug Administration safety assessment of new drugs approved between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. The key safety outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Availability of safety results was measured by the presence and timing of a record of trial-level results in ClinicalTrials.gov and a corresponding peer-reviewed publication. For the subset of trials with available results, completeness was defined as the reporting of safety results for all participants and compared between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. To assess concordance, we compared the numeric results for safety outcomes reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications to results in Food and Drug Administration trial reports. RESULTS: Among 156 trials studying 52 drugs, 91 (58.3%) trials reported safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov and 106 (67.9%) in peer-reviewed publications (risk difference = -9.6%, 95% confidence interval = -20.3 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was reported sooner in published articles compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (log-rank test, p = 0.01). There was no difference in time to reporting for serious adverse events (p = 0.05), adverse events (p = 0.09), or withdrawals due to adverse events (p = 0.20). Complete reporting of all-cause mortality was similar in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications (74.7% vs 78.3%, respectively; risk difference = -3.6%, 95% confidence interval = -15.5 to 8.3) and higher in ClinicalTrials.gov for serious adverse events (100% vs 79.2%; risk difference = 20.8%, 95% confidence interval = 13.0 to 28.5) and adverse events (100% vs 86.8%; risk difference = 13.2%, 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 19.7). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less often completely reported in ClinicalTrials.gov (62.6% vs 92.5%; risk difference = -29.8%, 95% confidence interval = -40.1 to -18.7). No difference was found in concordance of results between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications for all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Safety results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov at a similar rate as in peer-reviewed publications, with more complete reporting of certain safety outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov. Future efforts should consider adverse event reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov as an accessible data source for post-marketing surveillance and other evidence synthesis tasks.

Development and Validation of a Pediatric Comorbidity Index.

Comorbidity scores are widely used to help address confounding bias in nonrandomized studies conducted within health-care databases, but existing scores were developed to predict all-cause mortality in adults and might not be appropriate for use in pediatric studies. We developed and validated a pediatric comorbidity index, using health-care utilization data from the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases. Within the MarketScan database of US commercial claims data, pediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) continuously enrolled between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, were identified. Logistic regression was used to predict the 1-year risk of hospitalization based on 27 predefined conditions and empirically identified conditions derived from the most prevalent diagnoses among patients with the outcome. A single numerical index was created by assigning weights to each condition based on its ß coefficient. We conducted internal validation of the index and compared its performance with existing adult scores. The pediatric comorbidity index consisted of 24 conditions and achieved a C statistic of 0.718 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.714, 0.723). The index outperformed existing adult scores in a pediatric population (C statistics ranging from 0.522 to 0.640). The pediatric comorbidity index provides a summary measure of disease burden and can be used for risk adjustment in epidemiologic studies of pediatric patients.

Antidiabetic medication use in commercially insured children and adolescents in the United States from 2004 to 2019.

AIM: To describe the patterns of non-insulin antidiabetic medication use, initiation and adherence in the paediatric population. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of non-insulin antidiabetic medication use in children and adolescents (aged 10-18 years) using real-world data from a nationwide US commercial claims database (January 2004-September 2019). Trends in the prevalence of non-insulin antidiabetic medication use overall and by class were evaluated. Among new users of non-insulin antidiabetic agents, medication adherence was examined using group-based trajectory models. RESULTS: In a cohort of more than 1 million paediatric patients, the prevalence of any non-insulin antidiabetic medication use was 75.7 per 100 000 patients in 2004 and more than doubled to 162.0 per 100 000 in 2019. Biguanides (metformin) was by far the most widely used medication class. The use of newer classes was low (<10 per 100 000), but there was an uptake in the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists after liraglutide received paediatric approval in 2019. Medication adherence was poor during the 18 months after treatment initiation: 79.6% of initiators experienced an early treatment interruption (median time to interruption: 90 days among metformin monotherapy initiators) and 21% of initiators did not return for a prescription refill after the first month. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial increase in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use among commercially insured paediatric patients from 2004 to 2019. Nearly all patients were treated with metformin, while the use of newer agents remained low. Despite the increase in medication use, short treatment episodes were observed, even among patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, raising concern over poor adherence.

The automation of relevant trial registration screening for systematic review updates: an evaluation study on a large dataset of ClinicalTrials.gov registrations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial registries can be used as sources of clinical evidence for systematic review synthesis and updating. Our aim was to evaluate methods for identifying clinical trial registrations that should be screened for inclusion in updates of published systematic reviews. METHODS: A set of 4644 clinical trial registrations (ClinicalTrials.gov) included in 1089 systematic reviews (PubMed) were used to evaluate two methods (document similarity and hierarchical clustering) and representations (L2-normalised TF-IDF, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, and Doc2Vec) for ranking 163,501 completed clinical trials by relevance. Clinical trial registrations were ranked for each systematic review using seeding clinical trials, simulating how new relevant clinical trials could be automatically identified for an update. Performance was measured by the number of clinical trials that need to be screened to identify all relevant clinical trials. RESULTS: Using the document similarity method with TF-IDF feature representation and Euclidean distance metric, all relevant clinical trials for half of the systematic reviews were identified after screening 99 trials (IQR 19 to 491). The best-performing hierarchical clustering was using Ward agglomerative clustering (with TF-IDF representation and Euclidean distance) and needed to screen 501 clinical trials (IQR 43 to 4363) to achieve the same result. CONCLUSION: An evaluation using a large set of mined links between published systematic reviews and clinical trial registrations showed that document similarity outperformed hierarchical clustering for identifying relevant clinical trials to include in systematic review updates.

Assessing the filtration efficiency and regulatory status of N95s and nontraditional filtering face-piece respirators available during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains for many types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks"). As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed use of industrial N95 respirators and importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union. METHODS: We conducted a survey of masks in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer or supplier. We then assembled a testing apparatus at a university laboratory and performed a modified test of filtration performance using KCl and ambient particulate matter on masks from hospital inventories; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus. RESULTS: Over 100 different makes and models of traditional and nontraditional filtering facepiece respirators (N95-type masks) were in the inventory of surveyed U.S. teaching hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many are not correctly labelled and do not perform to accepted standards and a subset are obviously dangerous; many of these masks are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers and inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit products. CONCLUSIONS: Many FFRs available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations to assist end users in acquiring legitimate products. Institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for regulatory agencies regarding labeling and public disclosure aimed at increasing pandemic resilience.

Correction: The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and researchers must contextualize a patient's genetic variants against population-based references with detailed phenotyping. We sought to establish globally scalable technology, policy, and procedures for sharing biosamples and associated genomic and phenotypic data on broadly consented cohorts, across sites of care. METHODS: Three of the nation's leading children's hospitals launched the Genomic Research and Innovation Network (GRIN), with federated information technology infrastructure, harmonized biobanking protocols, and material transfer agreements. Pilot studies in epilepsy and short stature were completed to design and test the collaboration model. RESULTS: Harmonized, broadly consented institutional review board (IRB) protocols were approved and used for biobank enrollment, creating ever-expanding, compatible biobanks. An open source federated query infrastructure was established over genotype-phenotype databases at the three hospitals. Investigators securely access the GRIN platform for prep to research queries, receiving aggregate counts of patients with particular phenotypes or genotypes in each biobank. With proper approvals, de-identified data is exported to a shared analytic workspace. Investigators at all sites enthusiastically collaborated on the pilot studies, resulting in multiple publications. Investigators have also begun to successfully utilize the infrastructure for grant applications. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIN collaboration establishes the technology, policy, and procedures for a scalable genomic research network.

Off-label use of prescription analgesics among hospitalized children in the United States.

PURPOSE: Analgesics are the most frequently administered medications among hospitalized children. However, current analgesic prescribing patterns have not been well defined among hospitalized children. In addition, it is unknown what proportion of prescription analgesics is approved for use in children and what proportion is used "off-label." METHODS: Nationally representative data from 52 tertiary care children's hospitals in the Pediatric Health Information System were queried to determine prescribing rates of analgesic medications. We analyzed hospitalizations for children <18 years occurring between 1 April 2010 and 30 June 2018. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug labels were reviewed for pediatric information, and prescriptions were classified as on- or off-label based on age, route, and formulation. RESULTS: Among 4.9 million hospitalizations, 1.8 million (37.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.6-37.7) were associated with use of a prescription analgesic. Overall, 36.7% (95% CI = 36.7-36.7) of hospitalizations included off-label analgesic therapy, with 26.4% (95% CI = 26.4-26.5) associated with two or more off-label analgesics. Off-label analgesic use was higher among hospitalizations in the intensive care unit (61.5%) or with an operating room procedure (92.8%). Rates of off-label prescribing increased with age, peaking at 50.5% for adolescents. Prescription analgesics administered most frequently were morphine, fentanyl, and ketorolac, with off-label use occurring in 24.5%, 23.1%, and 11.3% of hospitalizations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over a third of pediatric hospitalizations were associated with the administration of prescription analgesics that have not been labeled for use in children. Our findings highlight the critical need to ensure that safe and effective analgesics are developed for children and that pediatric labeling is expanded for existing analgesics to inform treatment decisions.

Noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases affect as many as 60 million people in the United States and Europe. However, most rare diseases lack effective therapies and are in critical need of clinical research. Our objective was to determine the frequency of noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of randomized clinical trials studying rare diseases as defined by the Genetic and Rare Disease Information Center database that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012, and completed or discontinued by December 31, 2014. Our main outcome measures were the frequency of trial noncompletion and, among completed studies, frequency of trial nonpublication at 2 and 4 years following trial completion. Reasons for discontinuation were extracted from the registry, and trial sponsors were contacted for additional information, as needed. Two independent investigators performed publication searches for each trial in PubMed, EMBASE, and GoogleScholar, allowing for a minimum of 45 months between trial completion and publication. When a publication could not be identified, trial sponsors were contacted to confirm publication status. The impact of funding source on trial noncompletion was assessed with multivariable logistic regression, and the effect on time to publication was examined with Cox proportional hazards regression. Control variables included intervention type, trial phase, masking, enrollment, and study population. We analyzed 659 rare disease trials accounting for 70,305 enrolled patients. Industry was the primary funder for 327 trials (49.6%) and academic institutions for 184 trials (27.9%). There were 79 trials (12.0%) focused on pediatric populations. A total of 199 trials (30.2%) were discontinued. Lack of patient accrual (n = 64, 32.1%) and informative termination (n = 41, 20.6%) were the most common reasons for trial noncompletion. Among completed trials, 306 (66.5%) remained unpublished at 2 years and 142 (31.5%) at 4 years. In multivariable analyses, industry-funded trials were less likely to be discontinued than trials funded by healthcare centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-4.39, P = 0.003). We found no significant association between funding source and time to publication. A total of 18,148 patients were enrolled in trials that were discontinued or unpublished 4 years after completion. A potential limitation of our study is that certain interventional trials for rare diseases may not have been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, in particular Phase 0 and Phase I trials, which are not required to be registered. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, over half of clinical trials initiated for rare diseases were either discontinued or not published 4 years after completion, resulting in large numbers of patients with rare diseases exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative findings. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that participation of patients in rare disease trials advances scientific knowledge and treatments for rare diseases.

Prescription opioid use and misuse among adolescents and young adults in the United States: A national survey study.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse has become a leading cause of unintentional injury and death among adolescents and young adults in the United States. However, there is limited information on how adolescents and young adults obtain prescription opioids. There are also inadequate recent data on the prevalence of additional drug abuse among those misusing prescription opioids. In this study, we evaluated past-year prevalence of prescription opioid use and misuse, sources of prescription opioids, and additional substance use among adolescents and young adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) for the years 2015 and 2016. Prevalence of opioid use, misuse, use disorder, and additional substance use were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), stratified by age group and other demographic variables. Sources of prescription opioids were determined for respondents reporting opioid misuse. We calculated past-year prevalence of opioid use and misuse with or without use disorder, sources of prescription opioids, and prevalence of additional substance use. We included 27,857 adolescents (12-17 years of age) and 28,213 young adults (18-25 years of age) in our analyses, corresponding to 119.3 million individuals in the extrapolated national population. There were 15,143 respondents (27.5% [95% CI 27.0-28.0], corresponding to 32.8 million individuals) who used prescription opioids in the previous year, including 21.0% (95% CI 20.4-21.6) of adolescents and 32.2% (95% CI 31.4-33.0) of young adults. Significantly more females than males reported using any prescription opioid (30.3% versus 24.8%, P < 0.001), and non-Hispanic whites and blacks were more likely to have had any opioid use compared to Hispanics (28.9%, 28.1%, and 25.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). Opioid misuse was reported by 1,050 adolescents (3.8%; 95% CI 3.5-4.0) and 2,207 young adults (7.8%; 95% CI 7.3-8.2; P < 0.001). Male respondents using opioids were more likely to have opioid misuse without use disorder compared with females (23.2% versus 15.8%, respectively; P < 0.001), with similar prevalence by race/ethnicity. Among those misusing opioids, 55.7% obtained them from friends or relatives, 25.4% from the healthcare system, and 18.9% through other means. Obtaining opioids free from friends or relatives was the most common source for both adolescents (33.5%) and young adults (41.4%). Those with opioid misuse reported high prevalence of prior cocaine (35.5%), hallucinogen (49.4%), heroin (8.7%), and inhalant (30.4%) use. In addition, at least half had used tobacco (55.5%), alcohol (66.9%), or cannabis (49.9%) in the past month. Potential limitations of the study are that we cannot exclude selection bias in the study design or socially desirable reporting among participants, and that longitudinal data are not available for long-term follow-up of individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that the prevalence of prescription opioid use among adolescents and young adults in the US is high despite known risks for future opioid and other drug use disorders. Reported prescription opioid misuse is common among adolescents and young adults and often associated with additional substance abuse, underscoring the importance of drug and alcohol screening programs in this population. Prevention and treatment efforts should take into account that greater than half of youths misusing prescription opioids obtain these medications through friends and relatives.

Importance of authorship and inappropriate authorship assignment in paediatric research in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the importance of authorship and authorship position, and gauge perceptions of inappropriate authorship assignment, among authors publishing paediatric research conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study using an online survey of both corresponding and randomly selected, non-corresponding authors who published research conducted in LMICs from 2006 to 2015 in the top four paediatric journals by Eigenfactor score. We used chi-square tests to compare responses by authors living in LMICs to authors living in high-income countries (HICs). We analysed qualitative responses using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 1420 potential respondents, 19.6% (n = 279) completed the survey. 57% (n = 159) lived in LMICs and 43% (n = 120) in HICs. LMIC authors more commonly perceived first authorship as most important for their academic advancement than HIC authors (74.2% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.017), while HIC authors reported last authorship as most important (25.1% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.018). 65% (n = 181) of respondents believed that their collaborators had been inappropriately assigned authorship positions (no difference in LMIC and HIC responses) and 32.6% (n = 91) reported personally accepting inappropriate authorship positions (more common in HIC respondents, P = 0.005). In qualitative data, respondents questioned the applicability of standard authorship guidelines for collaborative research conducted in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: LMIC and HIC authors held different perceptions about the importance of authorship position. Reported inappropriate authorship assignment was common among both LMIC and HIC respondents. Alternatives to standard authorship criteria for research conducted in LMICs merit further studies.

OBJECTIF: Comprendre l'importance de la paternité d'auteur et de la position de l'auteur, et évaluer les perceptions de l'attribution inappropriée de la paternité d'auteur parmi les auteurs qui publient des recherches pédiatriques menées dans des pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire (PRFI). MÉTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude transversale à méthodes mixtes avec un sondage en ligne auprès d'auteurs de correspondance et sélectionnés au hasard, d'auteurs not de correspondance, ayant publié des recherches menées dans des PRFIde 2006 à 2015 dans les quatre revues pédiatriques les mieux classées par le score d'Eigenfactor. Nous avons utilisé des tests de chi carré pour comparer les réponses des auteurs des PRFI à ceux des aux auteurs des pays à revenu élevé (PRE). Nous avons analysé les réponses qualitatives à l'aide d'une analyse thématique. RÉSULTATS: Sur 1.420 répondants potentiels, 19,6% (n = 279) ont répondu au sondage. 57% (n = 159) vivaient dans des PRFI et 43% (n = 120) dans des PRE. Les auteurs des PRFI estimaient plus souvent que la position de premier auteur était le plus important pour leur avancement universitaire que les auteurs des PRE (74,2% contre 60,8%, P = 0,017), tandis que les auteurs desPRE ont déclaré que le dernier auteur était le plus important (25,1% contre 38,3%, P = 0,018). 65% (n = 181) des répondants estimaient que des positions d'auteur avaient été attribués de manière inappropriée à leurs collaborateurs (aucune différence entre les réponses des PRFI et des PRE) et 32,6% (n = 91) ont déclaré avoir personnellement accepté des positions d'auteurs inappropriées (plus fréquents chez les répondants desPRE, P = 0,005). En ce qui concerne les données qualitatives, les répondants se sont interrogés sur l'applicabilité des directives standards en matière de paternité d'auteur pour la recherche collaborative menée dans les PRFI. CONCLUSIONS: Les auteurs des PRFI et desPREont des perceptions différentes sur l'importance de la position de l'auteur. L'attribution inappropriée de laposition d'auteur signalée était fréquente chez les répondants des PRFI et des PRE. Les alternatives aux critères standards de la paternité d'auteur pour les recherches menées dans les PRFI méritent d'être approfondies.

Delays in completion and results reporting of clinical trials under the Paediatric Regulation in the European Union: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few medicines have been approved for children, leading to rates of off-label prescribing reported to be as high as 90%. In 2007, the European Union adopted the Paediatric Regulation, which mandates that pharmaceutical companies conduct paediatric studies for all new medicines, unless granted a waiver. We aimed to evaluate the availability of paediatric trial results from studies required under the Paediatric Regulation for new medicines authorised in the EU. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) public database of paediatric investigation plans was searched for new medicines centrally authorised in the EU between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 with at least 1 required paediatric study. For our study cohort of paediatric clinical trials required for these medicines, we used internal EMA databases and publicly available trial registries to determine changes to the planned completion date or study design, rates of trial completion, time to trial completion, and results reporting (peer-reviewed publication or posting on trial registry). Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to examine factors associated with study completion. A total of 326 paediatric clinical trials were required for 122 novel medicines authorised by the EMA between 2010 and 2014. In all, 76% (247/326) of paediatric studies were not planned to be completed until after the initial marketing authorisation. The planned completion dates for 50% (162/326) were further postponed by a median of 2.2 years. Overall, 38% (124/326) of paediatric studies were completed as of 30 November 2017. The rate of trial completion for paediatric studies planned to be completed after initial marketing authorisation was 23% (56/247), versus 86% (68/79) for trials planned to be completed before authorisation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.06-0.19). Among completed studies, the results were reported in a public registry or in the peer-reviewed literature for 85% (105/124) at a median of 1.1 years after study completion, and 60% (74/124) were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Limitations of this study include the potential lack of generalisability to medicines not authorised by the EMA and the possibility for more of these trials to be completed or published in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The completion of many paediatric studies required under the Paediatric Regulation has been delayed. Paediatric studies planned to be completed after marketing authorisation were associated with a lower likelihood of eventual completion, highlighting the need to examine the implementation of current policies in ensuring timely availability of important paediatric information.

Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prospective trial registration is a powerful tool to prevent reporting bias. We aimed to determine the extent to which published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were registered and registered prospectively. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2005 to October 2017; we also screened all articles cited by or citing included and excluded studies, and the reference lists of related reviews. We included studies that examined published RCTs and evaluated their registration status, regardless of medical specialty or language. We excluded studies that assessed RCT registration status only through mention of registration in the published RCT, without searching registries or contacting the trial investigators. Two independent reviewers blinded to the other's work performed the selection. Following PRISMA guidelines, two investigators independently extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models. RESULTS: We analyzed 40 studies examining 8773 RCTs across a wide range of clinical specialties. The pooled proportion of registered RCTs was 53% (95% confidence interval 44% to 58%), with considerable between-study heterogeneity. A subset of 24 studies reported data on prospective registration across 5529 RCTs. The pooled proportion of prospectively registered RCTs was 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%). Subgroup analyses showed that registration was higher for industry-supported and larger RCTs. A meta-regression analysis across 19 studies (5144 RCTs) showed that the proportion of registered trials significantly increased over time, with a mean proportion increase of 27%, from 25 to 52%, between 2005 and 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of trial registration has increased over time, but only one in five published RCTs is prospectively registered, undermining the validity and integrity of biomedical research.

A shared latent space matrix factorisation method for recommending new trial evidence for systematic review updates.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial registries can be used to monitor the production of trial evidence and signal when systematic reviews become out of date. However, this use has been limited to date due to the extensive manual review required to search for and screen relevant trial registrations. Our aim was to evaluate a new method that could partially automate the identification of trial registrations that may be relevant for systematic review updates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 179 systematic reviews of drug interventions for type 2 diabetes, which included 537 clinical trials that had registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov. Text from the trial registrations were used as features directly, or transformed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) or Principal Component Analysis (PCA). We tested a novel matrix factorisation approach that uses a shared latent space to learn how to rank relevant trial registrations for each systematic review, comparing the performance to document similarity to rank relevant trial registrations. The two approaches were tested on a holdout set of the newest trials from the set of type 2 diabetes systematic reviews and an unseen set of 141 clinical trial registrations from 17 updated systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The performance was measured by the number of relevant registrations found after examining 100 candidates (recall@100) and the median rank of relevant registrations in the ranked candidate lists. RESULTS: The matrix factorisation approach outperformed the document similarity approach with a median rank of 59 (of 128,392 candidate registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov) and recall@100 of 60.9% using LDA feature representation, compared to a median rank of 138 and recall@100 of 42.8% in the document similarity baseline. In the second set of systematic reviews and their updates, the highest performing approach used document similarity and gave a median rank of 67 (recall@100 of 62.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A shared latent space matrix factorisation method was useful for ranking trial registrations to reduce the manual workload associated with finding relevant trials for systematic review updates. The results suggest that the approach could be used as part of a semi-automated pipeline for monitoring potentially new evidence for inclusion in a review update.

Pediatric drug information available at the time of new drug approvals: A cross-sectional analysis.

PURPOSE: Greater than 50% of drugs lack pediatric labeling information, resulting in widespread "off-label" use in children. To increase pediatric prescribing information, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) was passed in 2003, requiring new drug applications to include pediatric assessments. We evaluated the study of new drugs in children since PREA was implemented. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of new drug applications submitted to the FDA from December 2003 to July 2012, using publicly available documents at Drugs@FDA. We calculated the proportion of new drugs that included a pediatric assessment at the time of approval and at a final review performed in July 2016. RESULTS: We identified 92 new drugs requiring pediatric assessments. Only 20 (21.7%) had been fully studied in children at the time of approval, while 9 (9.8%) had been partially assessed, and 63 (68.5%) did not have pediatric data. Among drugs approved without pediatric assessments, 4.2% met FDA deferral deadlines and 34.9% eventually submitted pediatric data. At the time of our final review, allowing for a mean of 8.6 years since drug approval, 57.6% of new drugs had not been fully assessed in children. The mean time between approval in adults and availability of pediatric data for drugs approved without pediatric assessments was 6.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: These results represent a comprehensive evaluation of the study of new drugs in children and demonstrate that many drugs continue to be approved without pediatric data. Our findings serve to inform approaches to strengthen adherence to PREA requirements.

Dissemination of the Results of Pediatric Clinical Trials Funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

This study examines practices related to trial registration and results submission in ClinicalTrials.gov and publication of pediatric clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.