Sensitivity and specificity of mobility scoring for the detection of foot lesions in pasture-based Irish dairy cows.

Lameness is an important production disease in dairy cows worldwide and has detrimental effects on cows' welfare, production, and reproductive performance, thus affecting the sustainability of dairy farming. Timely and effective detection of lameness allows for effective treatment, minimizing progression of disease, and maximizing the prognosis of recovery. Mobility scoring (MSc) is a 4 point (0-3) visual lameness scoring system that is the industry standard in several countries. However, few studies have examined the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of MSc to detect foot lesions. The aim of this observational study was to determine the Se and Sp of MSc to detect foot lesions in dairy cattle in a pasture-based system. Five hundred ninety-five primi- and multiparous cows were randomly selected from 12 commercial Irish dairy farms and recruited for the study. Recruited cows were mobility scored and passed through a foot-paring crate where all 4 feet were lifted for examination. The team recorded the anatomical location and severity of any foot lesions present based on appearance only. Then, based on the type and severity of the lesions present, cows were classified according to 3 case definitions case definition 1: Any lesion present; case definition 2: Moderate lesions present (excluding minor lesions expected to have a low probability of affecting gait); and case definition 3: Severe lesions present (only including lesions most likely to result in a detectable gait abnormality). Sensitivity and Sp of MSc was calculated based on a threshold of MSc ≥2, defined as impaired (MSc = 2) or severely impaired (MSc = 3) mobility for each of the 3 case definitions, at the overall level and disaggregated by parity. The overall cow-level lesion prevalence based on the case definition 1 was 0.54 with significant between-herd variation. The overall Se and Sp of MSc for the detection of foot lesions were 0.18 and 0.96, 0.35 and 0.94, 0.43 and 0.94 for the case definitions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Our findings showed poor Se, but high Sp of MSc for the detection of cows with foot lesions in a pasture-based system.

Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2014.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the timely disclosure of results of company-sponsored clinical trials related to all new medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) during 2014. This is the final extension of three previously reported studies of trials related to all new medicines approved in Europe in 2009, 2010 and 2011, and in 2012 and 2013. The original study found that over a three-year period over three-quarters of all trials were disclosed within 12 months and almost 90% were disclosed by the end of the study (31 January 2013). The extension studies (2012 and 2013 approvals) both showed an improvement in results disclosure within 12 months to 90%, and an overall disclosure rate of 92% and 93% respectively by the end of the studies. METHODS: The methodology used was exactly as previously reported. Various publicly available information sources were searched for both clinical trial registration and disclosure of results. All completed company-sponsored trials related to each new medicine approved for marketing by the EMA in 2014, carried out in patients and recorded on a clinical trials registry and/or included in an EMA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), were included. Information sources were searched between 1 May and 31 July 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The main outcome measure was the proportion of trials for which results had been disclosed on a registry or in the scientific literature either within 12 months of the later of either first regulatory approval or trial completion, or by 31 July 2016 (end of survey). Of the completed trials associated with 32 new medicines licensed to 22 different companies in 2014, results of 93% (505/542) had been disclosed within 12 months, and results of 96% (518/542) had been disclosed by 31 July 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The disclosure rate within 12 months of 93% suggests that industry is continuing to achieve disclosure in a timely manner. The overall disclosure rate at study end of 96% indicates that the improvement in transparency amongst company-sponsored trials has been maintained in the trials associated with new medicines approved in 2014.

Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2013.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the timely disclosure of results of company-sponsored clinical trials related to all new medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) during 2013. This is an extension of two previously reported studies of trials related to all new medicines approved in Europe in 2009, 2010 and 2011, and in 2012. The original study found that over a three year period over three-quarters of all trials were disclosed within 12 months and almost 90% were disclosed by the end of the study. The extension study (2012 approvals) showed an improvement in results disclosure within 12 months to 90%, and an overall disclosure rate of 92% by the end of the study. METHODS: The methodology used was exactly as previously reported. Various publicly available information sources were searched for both clinical trial registration and disclosure of results. All completed company-sponsored trials related to each new medicine approved for marketing by the EMA in 2013, carried out in patients and recorded on a clinical trials registry and/or included in an EMA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), were included. Information sources were searched between 1 May and 31 July 2015. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The main outcome measure was the proportion of trials for which results had been disclosed on a registry or in the scientific literature either within 12 months of the later of either first regulatory approval or trial completion, or by 31 July 2015 (end of survey). Of the completed trials associated with 34 new medicines licensed to 24 different companies in 2013, results of 90% (484/539) had been disclosed within 12 months, and results of 93% (500/539) had been disclosed by 31 July 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The disclosure rate within 12 months of 90% suggests that industry is continuing to achieve disclosure in a timely manner. The overall disclosure rate at study end of 93% indicates that the improvement in transparency amongst company-sponsored trials has been maintained in the trials associated with new medicines approved in 2013.

Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2012.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the timely disclosure of results of company-sponsored clinical trials related to all new medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) during 2012. This is an extension of the previously reported study of trials related to all new medicines approved in Europe in 2009, 2010 and 2011, which found that over three-quarters of all these trials were disclosed within 12 months and almost 90% were disclosed by the end of the study. METHODS: The methodology used was exactly as previously reported. Various publicly available information sources were searched for both clinical trial registration and disclosure of results. All completed company-sponsored trials related to each new medicine approved for marketing by the EMA in 2012, carried out in patients and recorded on a clinical trials registry and/or included in an EMA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), were included. Information sources were searched between 1 May and 31 July 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The main outcome measure was the proportion of trials for which results had been disclosed on a registry or in the scientific literature either within 12 months of the later of either first regulatory approval or trial completion, or by 31 July 2014 (end of survey). Of the completed trials associated with 23 new medicines licensed to 17 different companies in 2012, results of 90% (307/340) had been disclosed within 12 months, and results of 92% (312/340) had been disclosed by 31 July 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The disclosure rate within 12 months of 90% suggests the industry is now achieving disclosure in a timely manner more consistently than before. The overall disclosure rate at study end of 92% indicates that the improvement in transparency amongst company-sponsored trials has been maintained in the trials associated with new medicines approved in 2012.

Clinical trial transparency: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved recently in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have raised concerns around the transparency and disclosure rates of clinical trial results on clinical trial registries and in the scientific literature. The objective of this study was to assess the timely disclosure in the public domain of results of company-sponsored clinical trials related to all new medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) over a recent 3 year period. METHODS: The study surveyed various publicly available information sources for both clinical trial registration and disclosure of results (including clinical trial registries, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations [IFPMA] Clinical Trials Portal, EMA European Public Assessment Reports and PubMed), searched from 27 December 2012 to 31 January 2013. The study covered all 53 new medicines (except vaccines and fixed-dose combinations) approved for marketing by 34 pharmaceutical companies by the EMA in 2009, 2010 and 2011. It included all completed company-sponsored clinical trials conducted in patients and recorded on a clinical trial registry and/or included in an EPAR. OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS: The main outcome measure was the proportion of trials for which results had been disclosed on a registry or in the scientific literature either within 12 months of the later of either first regulatory approval or trial completion, or by 31 January 2013 (end of survey). Of the completed clinical trials associated with all 53 new medicines approved by the EMA between 2009 and 2011, 77% had results disclosed within 12 months. By 31 January 2013, this had increased to 89%. Rates of results disclosure within 12 months were 71%, 81% and 86% for new medicines approved in 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. Disclosure increased to 86%, 93% and 91% respectively by 31 January 2013. Although this was a purely quantitative study which did not aim to assess the content of disclosure against any specific requirements, limitations relating to a number of difficulties in finding all relevant data from multiple sources in the public domain were captured. CONCLUSIONS: Results of over three-quarters of all company-sponsored clinical trials related to new medicines recently approved by the EMA were disclosed within a year of completion or regulatory approval, and almost 90% were disclosed by 31 January 2013, suggesting transparency is now better than has sometimes been reported previously.