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.

Data Monitoring Committees and clinical trials: From scientific justification to organisation.

Clinical trials often last several months or even several years. As the trial progresses, it can be tempting to find out whether the data obtained already answers the question posed at the start of the trial in order to stop inclusions or monitoring earlier. However, knowing and taking into account interim results can sometimes compromise the integrity of the results, which is counterproductive. To minimise this risk and ensure that the treatments are assessed reliably, safety and/or efficacy criteria are monitored during the study by a Data Monitoring Committee. After receiving the results confidentially, the Data Monitoring Committee assesses the benefit/risk ratio of the study treatment and recommends that the trial be continued, modified or terminated. Data Monitoring Committee members issuing these recommendations have an important responsibility: a hasty decision to end the trial may lead to inconclusive results unable to answer the initial question and, inversely, delaying the decision to end the trial may expose the subjects to potentially ineffective or even harmful interventions. The Data Monitoring Committee's task is therefore particularly complex. With this in mind, the round table discussion at the Giens workshops was a chance to review the scientific justification for creating Data Monitoring Committees and to recall the need for their members to receive comprehensive training on the complexities of multiple analyses, confidentiality requirements applying to the results and the need for them to be aware that recommendations to end a trial must be based on data that is robust enough to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment studied.

Enteral citrulline supplementation versus placebo on SOFA score on day 7 in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: the IMMUNOCITRE randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Restoring plasma arginine levels through enteral administration of L-citrulline in critically ill patients may improve outcomes. We aimed to evaluate whether enteral L-citrulline administration reduced organ dysfunction based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and affected selected immune parameters in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial of enteral administration of L-citrulline versus placebo for critically ill adult patients under invasive mechanical ventilation without sepsis or septic shock was conducted in four ICUs in France between September 2016 and February 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to receive enteral L-citrulline (5 g) every 12 h for 5 days or isonitrogenous, isocaloric placebo. The primary outcome was the SOFA score on day 7. Secondary outcomes included SOFA score improvement (defined as a decrease in total SOFA score by 2 points or more between day 1 and day 7), secondary infection acquisition, ICU length of stay, plasma amino acid levels, and immune biomarkers on day 3 and day 7 (HLA-DR expression on monocytes and interleukin-6). RESULTS: Of 120 randomized patients (mean age, 60 ± 17 years; 44 [36.7%] women; ICU stay 10 days [IQR, 7-16]; incidence of secondary infections 25 patients (20.8%)), 60 were allocated to L-citrulline and 60 were allocated to placebo. Overall, there was no significant difference in organ dysfunction as assessed by the SOFA score on day 7 after enrollment (4 [IQR, 2-6] in the L-citrulline group vs. 4 [IQR, 2-7] in the placebo group; Mann‒Whitney U test, p = 0.9). Plasma arginine was significantly increased on day 3 in the treatment group, while immune parameters remained unaffected. CONCLUSION: Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients without sepsis or septic shock, enteral L-citrulline administration did not result in a significant difference in SOFA score on day 7 compared to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02864017 (date of registration: 11 August 2016).

Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality?

OBJECTIVES: To perform an overview of the overlap of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing direct oral anticoagulants and characterize these reviews in terms of bias and methodological quality (PROSPERO: CRD42022316273). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A PubMed-indexed search was performed from inception to January 31, 2022 to identify SRs evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated for an acute venous thromboembolism. The risk of bias of these SRs was assessed according to the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews tool. Redundancy was defined as overlap in terms of the type of population considered, the interventions compared, and the studies included. RESULTS: A total of 144 SRs were evaluated, of which 26 (18.1%) were classified as original, 87 (60.4%) as conceptual replications, and 31 (21.5%) as excessive replications. The risk of bias was high in 19 (73.1%) of the original SRs, 65 (74.7%) of the conceptual replications, and 21 (67.7%) of the excessive replications. Compared to the original SRs, the overall methodological quality was not improved in either conceptual or excessive replications. CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs was classified as replications; a fifth constituted excessive replications. The replications showed no improvement in overall methodological quality compared to the original SRs.

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

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/.

Tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of the evidence and its dissemination in the scientific literature.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis. METHODS: Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods. RESULTS: The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies' decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64-0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 - 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results. CONCLUSION: EMA's approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner.

Correction: A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133.].

Publication by association: how the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rush to scientific and political judgements on the merits of hydroxychloroquine was fuelled by dubious papers which may have been published because the authors were not independent from the practices of the journals in which they appeared. This example leads us to consider a new type of illegitimate publishing entity, 'self-promotion journals' which could be deployed to serve the instrumentalisation of productivity-based metrics, with a ripple effect on decisions about promotion, tenure and grant funding, but also on the quality of manuscripts that are disseminated to the medical community and form the foundation of evidence-based medicine.

Pharmacology and pharmacovigilance of protein kinase inhibitors.

Protein kinase inhibitors experienced their advent in the 2000s. Their market introduction made it possible to constitute a class of targeted therapies administered orally. This name was chosen to mark a break with conventional chemotherapy drugs, but it is important to stress that these are multi-target drugs with complex affinity profiles. Adverse effects can be explained by direct interactions with their targets of interest, chosen for their indications (on-target) but also interactions with other targets (off-target). The adverse effect profiles of these drugs are therefore varied and it is possible to identify common profiles related to inhibitions of common targets. Identification of these targets has improved the global understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the onset of adverse drug reactions as well as of the related diseases, and makes it possible to predict the adverse effect profile of new protein kinase inhibitors based on their affinities. In this review, we describe the main adverse drug reactions associated with protein kinase inhibitors, their frequency and their plausible mechanisms of action.

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Clinical trials during pandemics and beyond: time for a more efficient pharmacological strategy.

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, clinical trials on antiviral or symptomatic drugs have been conducted very rapidly even for drugs with a poor pharmacological rationale for efficacy on SARS-CoV-2. Despite lacking basic pharmacological information, most of these clinical trials were also extremely redundant. Applying simple rules, (such as identifying a mechanistic rationale, confirming the ability to reach exposure targets at therapeutic dosage and ensuring tests show drug efficacy in appropriate in vitro and animal models before entering clinical trials) might have saved considerable amounts of time and money, and might have avoided useless research. Moreover, combining these simple rules with the implementation of a relevant policy at both an international and a national level, by limiting studies with a poor methodological/scientific approach and aggregating studies with similar design into single clinical trials, is potentially a far more-efficient strategy.

Simultaneous Versus Delayed Resection for Initially Resectable Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A Prospective, Open-label, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To answer whether synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases (SLM) should be resected simultaneously with primary cancer or should be delayed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous studies have compared both strategies. All were retrospective and conclusions were contradictory. METHODS: Adults with colorectal cancer and resectable SLM were randomly assigned to either simultaneous or delayed resection of the metastases. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications within 60 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes included overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were recruited. Eighty-five patients (39 and 46 in the simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively) were analyzed. The percentage of major perioperative complications did not differ between groups (49% and 46% in the simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35-2.01; P = 0.70, logistic regression). Complications rates were 28% and 13% (P = 0.08, χ2 test) at colorectal site and 15% and 17% (P = 0.80, χ2 test) at liver site, in simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively. In the delayed-resection group, 8 patients did not reach the liver resection stage, and this was due to disease progression in 6 cases. After 2 years, overall and disease-free survival tended to be improved in simultaneous as compared with delayed-resection groups (P = 0.05), a tendency which persisted for OS after a median follow-up of 47 months. CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates did not appear to differ when colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases are resected simultaneously. Delayed resection tended to impair overall survival.

Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion Improves Extended Criteria Donor Liver Graft Function and Reduces Duration of Hospitalization Without Extra Cost: The PERPHO Study.

Few studies have evaluated the efficacy or the cost of hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) in the conservation of extended criteria donor (ECD) grafts from donation after brain death (DBD) donors during liver transplantation (LT). We performed a prospective, monocentric study (NCT03376074) designed to evaluate the interest of HOPE for ECD-DBD grafts. For comparison, a control group was selected after propensity score matching among patients who received transplants between 2010 and 2017. Between February and November 2018, the HOPE procedure was used in 25 LTs. Immediately after LT, the median aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level was significantly lower in the HOPE group (724UI versus 1284UI; P = 0.046) as were the alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 392UI versus 720UI; P = 0.01), lactate (2.2 versus 2.7; P = 0.01) There was a significant reduction in intensive care unit stay (3 versus 5 days; P = 0.01) and hospitalization (15 versus 20 days; P = 0.01). The incidence of early allograft dysfunction (EAD; 28% versus 42%; P = 0.22) was similar . A level of AST or ALT in perfusate >800UI was found to be highly predictive of EAD occurrence (areas under the curve, 0.92 and 0.91, respectively). The 12-month graft (88% versus 89.5%; P = 1.00) and patient survival rates (91% versus 91.3%; P = 1.00) were similar. The additional cost of HOPE was estimated at € 5298 per patient. The difference between costs and revenues, from the hospital's perspective, was not different between the HOPE and control groups (respectively, € 3023 versus € 4059]; IC, -€ 5470 and € 8652). HOPE may improve ECD graft function and reduce hospitalization stay without extra cost. These results must be confirmed in a randomized trial.

Letter to the editor: Covid-19 and Vit-D: Disease mortality negatively correlates with sunlight exposure.

The manuscript "Covid-19 And Vit-D: Disease Mortality Negatively Correlates with Sunlight Exposure" held our attention as we found fatal shortcomings that invalidates the analyses and conclusions.

The role of eosinophil morphology in distinguishing between reactive eosinophilia and eosinophilia as a feature of a myeloid neoplasm.

Morphological features of eosinophils in patients with reactive eosinophilia (28 patients) and clonal eosinophilia (26 patients) have been compared with each other and with the eosinophil characteristics of healthy volunteers (three subjects) and of patients with the idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (three patients). Morphological features, assessed in isolation from other haematological abnormalities, were found to have poor specificity for a myeloid neoplasm. The most useful feature was the presence of basophilic granules in mature eosinophils, which was associated particularly with acute myeloid leukaemia with inv(16). Marked reduction in granules occurred more often in some subsets of the myeloid neoplasm group but nevertheless was lacking in specificity since it was not infrequently seen in reactive eosinophilia. Although experienced morphologists more often considered that a myeloid neoplasm was likely in patients in whom this was the diagnosis (69%), myeloid neoplasia was also considered likely in a considerable proportion (39%) of patients with reactive eosinophilia. Morphological abnormalities of eosinophils therefore cannot be assessed in isolation in seeking to make a diagnosis of a myeloid neoplasm. Morphology is, however, needed and should be integrated with the results of other investigations.