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.

Value of Information for Clinical Trial Design: The Importance of Considering All Relevant Comparators.

Value of Information (VOI) analyses calculate the economic value that could be generated by obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty in a health economic decision model. VOI has been suggested as a tool for research prioritisation and trial design as it can highlight economically valuable avenues for future research. Recent methodological advances have made it increasingly feasible to use VOI in practice for research; however, there are critical differences between the VOI approach and the standard methods used to design research studies such as clinical trials. We aimed to highlight key differences between the research design approach based on VOI and standard clinical trial design methods, in particular the importance of considering the full decision context. We present two hypothetical examples to demonstrate that VOI methods are only accurate when (1) all feasible comparators are included in the decision model when designing research, and (2) all comparators are retained in the decision model once the data have been collected and a final treatment recommendation is made. Omitting comparators from either the design or analysis phase of research when using VOI methods can lead to incorrect trial designs and/or treatment recommendations. Overall, we conclude that incorrectly specifying the health economic model by ignoring potential comparators can lead to misleading VOI results and potentially waste scarce research resources.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment.

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type.

This study examines the dissemination of trial results by data source (ie, ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed) and funder type (ie, industry and nonindustry).

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.

Assessing the Financial Value of Decentralized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deployment of remote and virtual clinical trial methods and technologies, referred to collectively as decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), represents a profound shift in clinical trial practice. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the financial net benefits of DCTs has not been conducted. METHODS: We developed an expected net present value (eNPV) model of the cash flows for new drug development and commercialization to assess the financial impact of DCTs. The measure of DCT value is the increment in eNPV that occurs, on average, when DCT methods are employed in comparison to when they are not. The model is populated with parameter values taken from published studies, Tufts CSDD benchmark data, and Medable Inc. data on DCT projects. We also calculated the return on investment (ROI) in DCTs as the ratio of the increment in eNPV to the DCT implementation cost. RESULTS: We found substantial value from employing DCT methods in phase II and phase III trials. If we assume that DCT methods are applied to both phase II and phase III trials the increase in value is $20 million per drug that enters phase II, with a seven-fold ROI. CONCLUSIONS: DCTs can provide substantial extra value to sponsors developing new drugs, with high returns to investment in these technologies. Future research on this topic should focus on expanding the data to larger datasets and on additional aspects of clinical trial operations not currently measured.

Funding Sources of Therapeutic and Vaccine Clinical Trials for COVID-19 vs Non-COVID-19 Indications, 2020-2021.

Importance: Effective COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics reached the market within the first year of the pandemic. This rate of development and availability was an unprecedented achievement that required attention to numerous research and development, regulatory, and policy challenges. However, only limited evidence is currently available on the sources of funding for COVID-19 clinical trials. Objective: To compare the number and funding sources of clinical trials aimed at investigating therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19 vs those for all non-COVID-19 indications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, clinical trials in phase 1 to 3 that were registered to start between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021, were examined. All relevant data were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of clinical trials and their funding sources. Results: A total of 1977 clinical trials that addressed COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines were registered worldwide with starting dates from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021. This cohort represented 13.9% of all trials (N = 14 274) during the same period. Most of the COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine clinical trials were funded by public sources (1144 [57.9%]), followed by industry (540 [27.3%]) and public-private partnerships (293 [14.8%]). Most of these studies focused on the development of anti-COVID-19 therapeutics (1680 [85.0%]) rather than vaccines (297 [15.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that publicly funded research and medical institutions played a leading role as funding sources for generating effective COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines during the first 1.5 years of the pandemic and were most likely instrumental in their rapid development. It may be beneficial for the public sector to maintain the affordability and global access to these therapeutics and vaccines to ensure that they remain available for use worldwide.

A scoping review on patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations of precision medicine based on basket trials.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable challenges in the economic evaluation of precision medicines have been mentioned in previous studies. However, they have not addressed how an economic assessment would be conducted based on basket trials (novel studies for evaluation of precision medicine effects) in which the included populations have specific biomarkers and various cancers. Since basket trial populations have remarkable heterogeneity, this study aims to investigate the concept of heterogeneity and specific method(s) for considering it in economic evaluations through guidelines and studies that could be applicable in economic evaluation based on basket trials. AREA COVERED: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google to find studies and pharmacoeconomics guidelines. The inclusion criteria included subjects of patient heterogeneity and suggested explicit method(s). Thirty-nine guidelines and 43 studies were included and evaluated. None of these materials mentioned disease types in a target population as a factor causing heterogeneity. Moreover, in economic evaluations, patient heterogeneity has been considered with four general approaches subgroup analysis, individual-based models, sensitivity analysis, and regression models. EXPERT OPINION: Type of disease is not considered a contributing factor in population heterogeneity, and the probable appropriate method for this issue could be individual-based models.

How much is the lack of retention evidence costing trial teams in Ireland and the UK?

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support the use of many retention strategies in clinical trials is lacking. Despite this, trial teams still need to have some form of retention strategy in their trials to try and avoid high attrition rates. This study aimed to estimate how much this lack of retention evidence might be costing trials in Ireland and the UK. METHODS: We selected the top ten most routinely used retention strategies by Clinical Trial Units in the UK and made assumptions as to how each of these strategies was most likely to be implemented and the costs involved in doing this. We applied our costing model to a hypothetical trial scenario in both Ireland and the UK as well as to three published trial protocols. We developed the costing model and calculated the costs in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Retention strategies were often poorly specified, meaning we had to make assumptions about implementation and in some cases about the strategy itself. Based on our assumptions, some retention strategies can be extremely expensive; some of the costliest strategies included "data collection scheduled with routine care" (€900-€32,503.25), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-with integrated participant reminder (€304.74-€14,803.70), and "routine site visits by CTU staff" and "investigator meetings face to face", both costing (€777.67-€14,753.48). Others such as "telephone reminders for questionnaire response" (€34.58-€568.62), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-site reminder alone (€79.18-€112.23), and "targeted recruitment of sites/GPs" (€30-€1620) were less costly compared to the other strategies. DISCUSSION: The resources invested in the use of some retention strategies may outweigh known or imagined benefits on retention. Where benefits are currently unknown, evaluation should be a priority. CONCLUSION: More evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of trial retention strategies is needed to avoid widespread use of strategies that are both expensive and ineffective.

How is Clinical Trial Reimbursement Money Spent? South African Trial Participants' Reported Reimbursement Spending Patterns and Perceptions of Appropriate Reimbursement Amounts.

Reimbursement of participants in clinical trials is extensively debated. Guidance recommends that compensation should reflect time, inconvenience and reimbursement of expenses. This study describes how participants spend their reimbursement and perceptions of appropriate reimbursement amounts. This was a sub-study of the evidence for contraceptive options and HIV outcomes (ECHO) trial. Participants were from two sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A mixed methods approach was used. 500 participants completed a questionnaire, and 32 participated in one of four focus group discussions (FGD). The majority (81%) used reimbursement for transport to the research site, followed by toiletry purchases (64%). Many described how reimbursement supplemented income, used to cover basic living costs. Some used money to buy luxury items and takeaway foods. The ideal reimbursement amount per visit ranged: ZAR150-ZAR340 (US$10-24). Reimbursement spending and perceptions are in line with local guidance. Reimbursement should consider risk minimization together with ensuring informed, voluntary decision making.

Why are emerging countries popular for clinical research?

BACKGROUND: The business of clinical research has changed in the past two decades, shifting from industrialised Western countries to so-called emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. An appraisal of the trends could identify associated factors that may have implications for the local populations and their endemic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To identify potential reasons why emerging countries have become attractive places for international sponsors to conduct their clinical trials. METHODS: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, the National Health Research Database and the Nigeria Clinical Trials Registry, trend data on clinical research development were determined for two emerging African markets, Nigeria and South Africa (SA), from 2010 to 2018. Also, health data on the two countries from the fact sheets of health statistics of the World Health Organization were compared, as well as regulatory and ethical conditions. Available data were analysed using descriptive statistics and trend analysis. RESULTS: The impact of globalisation is evident from the upward trend in clinical trials in SA before 2010, and the clear downward trend thereafter. One reason for this change could be the alignment of SA's regulatory and ethical frameworks with the Western world. In contrast, the upward trend is only just beginning in Nigeria, with the introduction of ethical/regulatory frameworks, and supportive institutions making the business of clinical research more attractive on an international level. Although the number of international and local sponsors increased in Nigeria from 2010 to 2018, only the latter increased in SA, with the former decreasing over the same period. Overall, there is a mismatch between country-specific diseases and the drugs being tested, to the extent that leprosy, which is endemic in Nigeria, and tuberculosis in SA were not in the list of top 10 study areas in either country. CONCLUSIONS: The globalisation trend is evident in the clinical trials business, but cannot be generalised to all emerging countries. Timing and intensity vary from country to country relative to factors that advance the existing profit-orientated business models of the sponsors. Furthermore, various diseases have been localised, which entails a diversely increasing need for research.

Innovations in infertility: a comprehensive analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the interventional clinical trials in infertility and to assess whether trial location or industry sponsorship was associated with trial noncompletion. DESIGN: Retrospective review of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SETTING: None. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Descriptive statistics characterizing the attributes of the clinical trials including intervention type, topic, population, completion status, size, location, sponsor, and results. The effects of the sponsor and trial location on trial noncompletion were assessed via logistic regression. RESULT(S): In total, 505 trials initiated between 2010 and 2020 were included in our analysis. Drug interventions were the most commonly studied (45%); ovarian stimulation trials accounted for 27% of the studies. Live birth was tracked as an outcome by 20% of the studies; 3% of the trials included mental health outcomes. Few trials (15%) enrolled male participants. Only 11% of the trials reported results, and 4% of the trials reported the race or ethnicity of the participants. Most trials (82%) were conducted outside the United States. Overall, 18% of the trials were not completed, most often because of lack of accrual (47%). United States trials had over twice the odds of noncompletion in univariate analysis (odds ratio = 2.48, 95% confidence interval = [1.47, 4.17]); however, this relationship lost significance after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = [0.42, 2.14]). Trial sponsorship was not associated with trial noncompletion. CONCLUSION(S): Infertility trials predominantly investigated drug interventions, particularly ovarian stimulation. Live birth was an infrequent outcome despite its relevance to patients. Clinical trials should aim to address the unmet needs in fertility care and be inclusive of underserved populations affected by infertility.

French pediatricians' views on industry-sponsored clinical trials: Toward stronger research on ethics?

INTRODUCTION: There is a crucial need to perform clinical trials in pediatrics due to an increased prescription rate of unapproved drugs. Since pediatricians are the gatekeepers of clinical trials, the primary objective of the current study was to evaluate, for the first time in France, pediatricians' views on performing clinical trials. The second objective was to identify the factors that influence their perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2017, pediatricians who were members of the French Pediatric Society completed an online survey comprising 27 questions. Fisher's exact test was performed to evaluate possible correlations between pediatrician characteristics (age, sex, parenthood, professional experience, status, type of practice, previous participation in clinical trials, ethics education) and personal views on clinical trials. A value of P≤0.001 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Overall, 207 pediatricians completed the questionnaire. Almost all participants (96.6%) were in favor of performing clinical trials. Pediatricians with teaching experience at university hospitals were more reluctant to propose children's participation in clinical trials for fear of increasing parental stress (P<0.001), or the occurrence of serious adverse reactions (P<0.001). Pediatricians with coordinator or investigator experience considered that one of the ethical drifts in pediatric clinical trials is the risk of child exploitation (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a favorable position of pediatricians concerning clinical trials, despite numerous concerns. Another outcome is the need to create an educational system of research in ethics in France dedicated to pediatricians in order to guarantee good clinical practice in research.

Setting up a pragmatic clinical trial in a low-resource setting: A qualitative assessment of GoLBeT, a trial of podoconiosis management in Northern Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are often perceived as being expensive, difficult and beyond the capacity of healthcare workers in low-resource settings. However, in order to improve healthcare coverage, the World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Report 2013 stated that all countries need to become generators as well as recipients of data. This study is a methodological examination of the steps and processes involved in setting up the Gojjam Lymphoedema Best Practice Trial (GoLBeT; ISRCTN67805210), a highly pragmatic clinical trial conducted in northern Ethiopia. Challenges to the trial and strategies used to deal with them were explored, together with the reasons for delays. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Qualitative research methods were used to analyse emails and reports from the period between trial inception and recruitment. This analysis was complemented by interviews with key informants from the trial operational team. The Global Health Research Process Map was used as a framework against which to compare the steps involved in setting up the trial. A mini-group discussion was conducted with the trial operational team after study completion for reflection and further recommendations. This study showed that the key areas of difficulty in setting up and planning this trial were: the study design, that is, deciding on the study endpoint, where and how best to measure it, and assuring statistical power; recruitment and appropriate training of staff; planning for data quality; and gaining regulatory approvals. Collaboration, for example with statisticians, the trial steering committee, the study monitors, and members of the local community was essential to successfully setting up the trial. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Lessons learnt from this trial might guide others planning pragmatic trials in settings where research is not common, allowing them to anticipate possible challenges and address them through trial design, planning and operational delivery. We also hope that this example might encourage similar pragmatic studies to be undertaken. Such studies are rarely undertaken or locally led, but are an accessible and efficient way to drive improved outcomes in public health.