Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.

BACKGROUND: Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency. METHODS: Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: Ripe for improvement.

Florian Naudet and co-authors discuss strengthening requirements for sharing clinical trial data.

Intent to share Annals of Internal Medicine's trial data was not associated with data re-use.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) data-sharing policy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of output from data-sharing (i.e. publications re-using the data). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study. RCTs published in the AIM between 2007 and 2017 were retrieved on PubMed. Publications where the data had been re-used were identified on Web of Science. Searches were performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was any published re-use of the data (re-analysis, secondary analysis, or meta-analysis of individual participant data [MIPD]), where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the RCT. Analyses used Cox (primary analysis) models adjusting for RCTs characteristics (registration: https://osf.io/8pj5e/). RESULTS: 185 RCTs were identified. 106 (57%) mentioned willingness to share data and 79 (43%) did not. 208 secondary analyses, 67 MIPD and no re-analyses were identified. No significant association was found between intent to share and re-use where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the primary RCT (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.04 [0.47-2.30]). CONCLUSION: Over ten years, RCTs published in AIM expressing an intention to share data were not associated with more extensive re-use of the data.

Funders' data-sharing policies in therapeutic research: A survey of commercial and non-commercial funders.

BACKGROUND: Funders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Funders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective.

Data-sharing recommendations in biomedical journals and randomised controlled trials: an audit of journals following the ICMJE recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data-sharing policy which came into force on 1 July 2018 by ICMJE-member journals and by ICMJE-affiliated journals declaring they follow the ICMJE recommendations. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of data-sharing policies in 2018 on journal websites and in data-sharing statements in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING: ICMJE website; PubMed/Medline. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: ICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018, had an accessible online website and were not considered as predatory journals according to Beall's list. One hundred RCTs for member journals and 100 RCTs for affiliated journals with a data-sharing policy, submitted after 1 July 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome for the policies was the existence of a data-sharing policy (explicit data-sharing policy, no data-sharing policy, policy merely referring to ICMJE recommendations) as reported on the journal website, especially in the instructions for authors. For RCTs, our primary outcome was the intention to share individual participant data set out in the data-sharing statement. RESULTS: Eight (out of 14; 57%) member journals had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (three were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, one was less demanding and four were compliant), five (35%) additional journals stated that they followed the ICMJE requirements, and one (8%) had no policy online. In RCTs published in these journals, there were data-sharing statements in 98 out of 100, with expressed intention to share individual patient data reaching 77 out of 100 (77%; 95% CI 67% to 85%). One hundred and forty-five (out of 489) ICMJE-affiliated journals (30%; 26% to 34%) had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (11 were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, 85 were less demanding and 49 were compliant) and 276 (56%; 52% to 61%) merely referred to the ICMJE requirements. In RCTs published in affiliated journals with an explicit data-sharing policy, data-sharing statements were rare (25%), and expressed intentions to share data were found in 22% (15% to 32%). CONCLUSION: The implementation of ICMJE data-sharing requirements in online journal policies was suboptimal for ICMJE-member journals and poor for ICMJE-affiliated journals. The implementation of the policy was good in member journals and of concern for affiliated journals. We suggest the conduct of continuous audits of medical journal data-sharing policies in the future. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered before the start of the research on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n6whd/).

[Data sharing policies of clinical trials funders in France]. / Les politiques de partage de données des financeurs d'essais cliniques en France.

AIMS: The aims of this survey were to evaluate the percentage of French clinical trial funders with a data sharing policy, to describe their data sharing policies and, more generally, the transparency of the research they fund. METHODS: The different funders of clinical trials in France have been identified from 3 lists of tenders for clinical research projects: the internal list of the University Hospital Center (CHU) of Rennes, the list of the Interregional Group for Clinical Research and Innovation (GIRCI EST), the list of the portal for calls for projects in health research. Funders were contacted, first by email and then by phone (at least two email and/or phone reminders) to respond to an online survey via Google form. The questionnaire aimed to assess the existence of a sharing policy or not, as well as the way in which it was set up. RESULTS: Out of 190 funders contacted, 94 did not respond. Sixty-five of the respondents were excluded because they did not fund clinical trials. Of the 31 funders included (including Direction générale de l'offre de soins [DGOS], Institut national contre le cancer [INCa], Groupement Interrégional de Recherche Clinique et d'Innovation [GIRCIs]), only 9 (29%) had implemented a data sharing policy. Among these nine funders, only one had a mandatory sharing policy and eight a policy supporting but not enforcing data sharing. Five allowed the use of budget lines dedicated to data sharing. Three reported granting data sharing incentives. Three had dedicated guidelines indicating a specific mode of sharing data (sharing on request and/or on a specialized platform) and specifying the type of data (individual patient data and/or protocol and amendments). For all three, there were restrictions on sharing data to researchers only. Data sharing policies concerned 19% of the total financial volume (850,032,000 euros) of the 26 funders who reported this information. CONCLUSION: Despite international interest in clinical trial data sharing practices, clinical trials funders with a strong data-sharing policy remain an exception in France.