Investigator brochures for phase I/II trials lack information on the robustness of preclinical safety studies.

AIM: Meaningful and ethical phase I/II trials can only be conducted with supportive prospective risk-benefit assessment. This relies largely on preclinical animal studies addressing the safety and efficacy of treatments. These studies are reported in an Investigator's Brochure (IB) to inform ethics review boards and regulatory authorities. Our study investigated the extent, reporting quality and accessibility of preclinical safety studies (PCSSs) compiled in IBs. METHODS: We analysed a sample of 46 IBs for phase I/II trials approved at a leading German university medical centre from 2010 to 2016. We extracted all PCSSs presented in the 46 IBs and assessed them for reporting on methodological measures to reduce validity threats. RESULTS: The 46 IBs included 777 PCSSs. Blinded outcome assessment, randomization and sample size calculation were reported for fewer than 1% of studies. Only 5% of the PCSSs provided a reference to published data. Compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidance was reported for 52% of PCSSs, but the GLP document itself does not include any relevant methodological requirements for the reduction of validity threats. CONCLUSION: Scarce reporting in IBs and the very limited publicly available data on PCSSs make it almost impossible for investigators to critically evaluate the robustness of preclinical evidence of drug safety. Combined with recent findings on the presentation of preclinical efficacy studies in IBs, we conclude that the current reporting patterns in IBs strongly limit the independent review of evidential support for early human trials. Regulatory authorities and IRBs should require better reporting in IBs.

Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: Do they enable risk-benefit assessment?

Human protection policies require favorable risk-benefit judgments prior to launch of clinical trials. For phase I and II trials, evidence for such judgment often stems from preclinical efficacy studies (PCESs). We undertook a systematic investigation of application materials (investigator brochures [IBs]) presented for ethics review for phase I and II trials to assess the content and properties of PCESs contained in them. Using a sample of 109 IBs most recently approved at 3 institutional review boards based at German Medical Faculties between the years 2010-2016, we identified 708 unique PCESs. We then rated all identified PCESs for their reporting on study elements that help to address validity threats, whether they referenced published reports, and the direction of their results. Altogether, the 109 IBs reported on 708 PCESs. Less than 5% of all PCESs described elements essential for reducing validity threats such as randomization, sample size calculation, and blinded outcome assessment. For most PCESs (89%), no reference to a published report was provided. Only 6% of all PCESs reported an outcome demonstrating no effect. For the majority of IBs (82%), all PCESs were described as reporting positive findings. Our results show that most IBs for phase I/II studies did not allow evaluators to systematically appraise the strength of the supporting preclinical findings. The very rare reporting of PCESs that demonstrated no effect raises concerns about potential design or reporting biases. Poor PCES design and reporting thwart risk-benefit evaluation during ethical review of phase I/II studies.

Tracking the timely dissemination of clinical studies. Characteristics and impact of 10 tracking variables.

Background: Several meta-research studies and benchmarking activities have assessed how comprehensively and timely, academic institutions and private companies publish their clinical studies. These current "clinical trial tracking" activities differ substantially in how they sample relevant studies, and how they follow up on their publication. Methods: To allow informed policy and decision making on future publication assessment and benchmarking of institutions and companies, this paper outlines and discusses 10 variables that influence the tracking of timely publications. Tracking variables were initially selected by experts and by the authors through discussion. To validate the completeness of our set of variables, we conducted i) an explorative review of tracking studies and ii) an explorative tracking of registered clinical trials of three leading German university medical centres. Results: We identified the following 10 relevant variables impacting the tracking of clinical studies: 1) responsibility for clinical studies, 2) type and characteristics of clinical studies, 3) status of clinical studies, 4) source for sampling, 5) timing of registration, 6) determination of completion date, 7) timeliness of dissemination, 8) format of dissemination, 9) source for tracking, and 10) inter-rater reliability. Based on the description of these tracking variables and their influence, we discuss which variables could serve in what ways as a standard assessment of "timely publication". Conclusions: To facilitate the tracking and consequent benchmarking of how often and how timely academic institutions and private companies publish clinical study results, we have two core recommendations. First, the improvement in the link between registration and publication, for example via institutional policies for academic institutions and private companies. Second, the comprehensive and transparent reporting of tracking studies according to the 10 variables presented in this paper.

Access policies in biobank research: what criteria do they include and how publicly available are they? A cross-sectional study.

Access policies of biobanks specify the governance of sample and data sharing. Basic guidance on relevant access criteria exists, but so far little is known about their public availability and what criteria for access and prioritization they actually include. Access policies were gathered by hand searching the websites of biobanks identified via registries (eg, BBMRI and P3G), and by additional search strategies. Criteria for access and prioritization were synthesized by thematic analysis. Of 523 biobank websites screened, 9% included a publicly available access policy. With all applied search strategies, we finally retrieved 74 access policies. Thematic analysis resulted in 62 different access criteria in three main categories: (a) scientific quality, (b) value and (c) ethical soundness. 'Scientific quality' criteria were mentioned in 70% of all policies, 'value' criteria in 33% and 'ethical soundness' criteria in 73%. Criteria for prioritization were specified in 27% of all policies. Access policies differed broadly in number, specification and operationalization of the included access criteria. In order to make biobank research more effective, efficient and trustworthy, access policies should be more available to the public. Furthermore, access policies should aim for precise and more harmonized wording of access criteria. From a public and governance perspective, the issue of how to prioritize access to scarce samples should form part of access policies.