Study protocol: Project 2VIDA! SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intervention delivery for adults in Southern California.

Background: To date, the United States (US) leads the world in the number of infections and deaths due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality are staggering. Age-adjusted data show that AA and Latino individuals have had higher rates of death over most of the pandemic and during surges. Project 2VIDA! is community-based participatory research (CBPR) that was developed to address individual, social, and contextual factors related to access and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among African American and Latino communities in Southern California. This paper describes the study protocol and overarching objectives. Methods and design: Project 2VIDA! is a multilevel intervention that builds on the principals of CBPR and is designed to increase uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among African American and Latino individuals (≥16 years and older) in San Diego County. The intervention was developed with a working group comprised of representatives from community and academia and centers on targeted COVID-19 individual awareness and education, linkage to medical and supportive services, COVID-19 community outreach and health promotion and offering the COVID-19 vaccine through community pop-up clinics. Discussion: Findings from 2VIDA! will provide data on the impact, feasibility, and acceptability of the intervention which are all crucial for the adaptation, refinement, and improvement of vaccine outreach interventions for COVID-19 and other vaccine preventable infectious diseases that severely impact African American and Latino communities. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05022472?term=Project+2VIDA&draw=2&rank=1, NCT05022472.

New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance.

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) conducted a follow-up study in 2022 to assess trends in protocol amendment experiences and the impact amendments have had on clinical trial performance, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixteen pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations provided data on 950 protocols and 2188 amendments. The results show that, since 2015, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment in phases I-IV has increased substantially (from 57 to 76%) and the mean number of amendments per protocol has increased 60% to 3.3, up from 2.1. Phase I and III protocols saw the highest increases in the mean number of amendments implemented per protocol. A much higher percentage of amendments-77%-were deemed unavoidable with regulatory agency requests and changes to the study strategy as the top reasons cited for amending a protocol. The total average duration to implement an amendment has nearly tripled during the past decade. The time from identifying the need-to-amend to last oversight approval now takes an average of 260 days and the mean duration during which investigative sites operate with different versions of the clinical trial protocol spans 215 days. Protocols that implemented at least one amendment were more effective at increasing patient screening volume and reducing the actual number of patients enrolled relative to plan. Lastly, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment and mean number of amendments was significantly higher for protocols conducted during the pandemic.

Publication of Results of Registered Trials With Published Study Protocols, 2011-2022.

Importance: Publishing study protocols might reduce research waste because of unclear methods or incomplete reporting; on the other hand, there might be few additional benefits of publishing protocols for registered trials that are never completed or published. No study has investigated the proportion of published protocols associated with published results. Objective: To estimate the proportion of published trial protocols for which there are not associated published results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used stratified random sampling to identify registered clinical trials with protocols published between January 2011 and August 2022 and indexed in PubMed Central. Ongoing studies and those within 1 year of the primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Published results were sought from August 2022 to March 2023 by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, emailing authors, and using an automated tool, as well as through incidental discovery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a weighted estimate of the proportion of registered trials with published protocols that also had published main results. The proportion of trials with unpublished results was estimated using a weighted mean. Results: From 1500 citations that were screened, 308 clinical trial protocols were included, and it was found that 87 trials had not published their main results. Most included trials were investigator-initiated evaluations of nonregulated products. When published, results appeared a mean (SD) of 3.4 (2.0) years after protocol publications. With the use of a weighted mean, an estimated 4754 (95% CI, 4296-5226) eligible clinical trial protocols were published and indexed in PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022. In the weighted analysis, 1708 of those protocols (36%; 95% CI, 31%-41%) were not associated with publication of main results. In a sensitivity analysis excluding protocols published after 2019, an estimated 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) of 3670 (95% CI, 3310-4032) protocol publications were not associated with publication of main results. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of clinical trial protocols published on PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022 suggests that many protocols were not associated with subsequent publication of results. The overall benefits of publishing study protocols might outweigh the research waste caused by unnecessary protocol publications.

Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022.

BACKGROUND: The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was created to guide the design and reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical trial protocols. This study aims to investigate the extent of concordance with this guideline in the relevant field of cancer care research. METHODS: A scoping review of TCM cancer trial protocols published in English and Chinese since January 2019 was conducted. Five major academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched. Concordance with the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was assessed by descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three TCM cancer care trial protocols were identified, comprising 23 acupuncture, 26 Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and 4 Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) interventions. The majority of the checklist items had a low rate of concordance, especially in the reporting of quality control and safety, dosage, TCM diagnostic patterns, possible interactions between Western Medicine and TCM interventions, and TCM-related outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Although the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 guideline was established through extensive Delphi consultation, there are low rates of concordance between published TCM cancer care clinical trial protocols with the guideline. Further research is necessary to understand the low rate of concordance and how scientific rigors of reporting can be improved in TCM cancer care research.

History of Changes in the Protocol of Clinical Trial of Zinc Supplementation in Treatment of COVID-19 by Hydroxychloroquine.

An article published in this journal used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of combining chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) and zinc in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Findings from this study indicate that zinc supplements did not enhance the clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in improving COVID-19 treatment. Although this finding is consistent with many previous studies, several concerns regarding study protocol and trial registration, including interventions and primary outcomes, have been raised in which the protocol has been changed after the completion of the recruitment.

Projecting complete redaction of clinical trial protocols (RAPTURE): redacted cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise redactions in clinical trials and estimate a time when all protocols are fully removed (RAPTURE). DESIGN: Redacted cross sectional study. SETTING: Published phase 3 randomised controlled trials from 1 January 2010 to ██████████████. PARTICIPANTS: New England Journal of Medicine, ██████████, and Journal of the American Medical Association. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: █████ ████████ ██████████████ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████████████████ ██████████████████ RESULTS: ████████████████████ met the inclusion criteria, with 268 (56.7%) research protocols available and accessible. The rate of redactions in protocols has increased from 0 in 2010 to 60.8% in 2021 (P<0.001). The degree of data redaction has also increased, with the average cumulative redactions among industry funded trials rising from 0 in 2010 to 3.5 pages in 2021 (P<0.001). Modelling predicts that RAPTURE is expected to occur between 2073 and 2136. Redactions featured predominantly in ████████ sponsored trials and mostly occurred in the statistical design. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the rise in protocol redactions and predicts that, ██████████████████████████████████████████ will be entirely redacted between 2073 and 2136. A legitimate rationale for the redactions could ███ be found. A multipronged strategy against protocol redactions is required to maintain the integrity of science. AVAILABILITY: This paper is partially redacted, but for the sake of ███████████, a version without any redactions can be found in the supplementary material.

Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality.

PURPOSE: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS: This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION: Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Exclusion of pregnant people from emergency vaccine clinical trials: A systematic review of clinical trial protocols and reporting from 2009 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Existing ethics guidance and regulatory requirements emphasize the need for pregnancy-specific safety and efficacy data during the development of vaccines in health emergencies. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of vaccine clinical trials during active epidemic periods. METHODS: We searched for Phase II and Phase III vaccine clinical trials initiated during the H1N1 influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika, and Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks from 2009 to 2019. Data were extracted from clinical trial protocols identified in the following registries: ClinicalTrials.gov, Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR), and all primary registries indicated by the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Published studies from registered clinical trials were located through PubMed. Data was extracted on eligibility criteria and pregnancy outcomes. Data from this study is available in the Center for Open Science Data Repository: https://osf.io/nfk2p/?view_only=47deb3b206724af9b46c9c0c0083a267. RESULTS: We identified 96 vaccine clinical trial protocols and included 84 in analysis. 5 records were excluded in screening for irrelevant abstracts, 7 were excluded in full-text assessment (1 for a therapeutic drug trial, 3 for enrolling elderly adults only, 3 for enrolling children/adolescents only). There were no eligible trials for MERS-CoV or Zika virus vaccines. Overall, 8 protocols explicitly included pregnant people; of these, 3 were completed trials with published results. Incidental pregnancies and outcomes of pregnant participants were reported in 2 studies, 10 studies reported serious adverse events related to pregnancy without mentioning total incidental pregnancies. A total of 411 recorded pregnancy outcomes were reported, with 293 from the 3 pregnancy-eligible studies with results. 71 serious adverse events pertaining to pregnancy were reported from all clinical trials with results. CONCLUSION: Pregnant people are underrepresented in vaccine clinical trials conducted during outbreaks, resulting in underreporting of pregnancy-related outcomes and a lack of protection for pregnant people and neonates from infectious diseases.

Systematic Underestimation of Visual Sensitivity Loss on Microperimetry: Implications for Testing Protocols in Clinical Trials.

Purpose: To examine whether systematic changes in visual sensitivity measurements on microperimetry occur over tests within the same session and whether these changes vary according to the level of visual sensitivity loss. Methods: Eighty individuals with glaucoma or atrophic age-related macular degeneration underwent three microperimetry tests in one eye during one session using the 4-2 staircase strategy. Changes in mean sensitivity (MS) and pointwise sensitivity (PWS) between the first and second test pairs were examined, with PWS was examined separately based on its average value across the three tests in 6-dB bins. The coefficient of repeatability (CoR) for MS between each sequential test pair was also calculated. Results: There was a significant decline in MS from the first to second test (P = 0.001), but no significant difference in MS was seen between the second and third tests (P = 0.562). This significant decline in the first test pair was observed in locations with an average PWS of <6 dB or between 6 to 12 dB and between 12 to 18 dB (P < 0.001), but not for all other average PWS bins (P ≥ 0.337). The CoR of MS was significantly lower in the second compared to the first test pair (1.4 dB and 2.5 dB, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The 4-2 staircase strategy conventionally used on microperimetry testing systematically underestimates visual sensitivity loss on the first test. Translational Relevance: The consistency and accuracy of visual sensitivity measurements on microperimetry in clinical trials could be markedly improved by using estimates from an initial test to seed subsequent tests and excluding this first test from analyses.

Precision radiotherapy using MR-linac for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in MEN1 patients (PRIME): a protocol for a phase I-II trial, and systematic review on available evidence for radiotherapy of pNETs.

Background: Surgical resection is the standard of care for the treatment of pancreatic neuro-endocrine tumors (pNETs) in patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 (MEN1). However, surgery can cause significant short- and long-term morbidity. Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is a potential effective treatment with little side effects. With traditional radiotherapy techniques, irradiation of pancreatic tumors to high dose levels was hampered by poor visibility of the tumor during treatment. MRgRT uses onboard MRI to guide the treatment, thereby enabling delivery of ablative irradiation doses to the tumor, while sparing surrounding tissues. In this study, we describe results from a systematic review assessing efficacy of radiotherapy in pNET and present the protocol of the PRIME study. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for articles assessing efficacy and side effects of radiotherapy for the treatment of pNETs. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I Risk of Bias Tool for observational studies. Descriptive statistics were used to describe results of included trials. Results: Four studies comprising of 33 patients treated by conventional radiotherapy were included. Despite the heterogeneity of studies, radiotherapy appeared to be effective for the treatment of pNETs with most patients responding (45.5%) or stabilizing (42.4%) in tumor size. Conclusion and trial design: Due to the limited literature available and concerns about damage to surrounding tissue, conventional radiotherapy is currently little used for pNETs. The PRIME study is a phase I-II trial with a single arm prospective cohort study design, investigating the efficacy of MRgRT in MEN1 patients with pNET. MEN1 patients with growing pNETs with a size between 1.0 and 3.0 cm without malignant features are eligible for inclusion. Patients are treated with 40 Gy in 5 fractions on the pNET, using online adaptive MRgRT on a 1.5T MR-linac. The primary endpoint is the change in tumor size at MRI 12 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints include radiotoxicity, quality of life, endocrine and exocrine pancreas function, resection rate, metastatic free and overall survival. When MRgRT is found effective with low radiotoxicity, it could reduce the need for surgery for pNET and preserve quality of life. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO https://clinicaltrials.gov/, (CRD42022325542).

Evolution of Phase II Oncology Trial Design: from Single Arm to Master Protocol.

The recent development of novel anticancer treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has accelerated the detection of treatment candidates tremendously. The rapidly changing drug development landscapes and the high failure rates in Phase III trials both underscore the importance of more efficient and robust phase II designs. The goals of phase II oncology studies are to explore the preliminary efficacy and toxicity of the investigational product and to inform future drug development strategies such as go/no-go decisions for phase III development, or dose/indication selection. These complex purposes of phase II oncology designs call for efficient, flexible, and easy-to-implement clinical trial designs. Therefore, innovative adaptive study designs with the potential of improving the efficiency of the study, protecting patients, and improving the quality of information gained from trials have been commonly used in Phase II oncology studies. Although the value of adaptive clinical trial methods in early phase drug development is generally well accepted, there is no comprehensive review and guidance on adaptive design methods and their best practice for phase II oncology trials. In this paper, we review the recent development and evolution of phase II oncology design, including frequentist multistage design, Bayesian continuous monitoring, master protocol design, and innovative design methods for randomized phase II studies. The practical considerations and the implementation of these complex design methods are also discussed.

Viral clade is associated with severity of symptomatic genotype 3 hepatitis E virus infections in Belgium, 2010-2018.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: HEV genotype (gt) 3 infections are prevalent in high-income countries and display a wide spectrum of clinical presentations. Host - but not viral - factors are reported to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and biochemical data laboratory-confirmed HEV infections (by PCR and/or a combination of IgM and IgG serology) at the Belgian National Reference Centre between January 2010 and June 2018 were collected using standardised case report forms. Genotyping was based on HEV open reading frame 2 sequences. Serum CXCL10 levels were measured by a magnetic bead-based assay. H&E staining was performed on liver biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 274 HEV-infected individuals were included. Subtype assignment was possible for 179/218 viraemic cases, confirming gt3 as dominant with an almost equal representation of clades abchijklm and efg. An increased hospitalisation rate and higher peak serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase were found in clade efg-infected individuals in univariate analyses. In multivariable analyses, clade efg infections remained more strongly associated with severe disease presentation than any of the previously identified host risk factors, being associated with a 2.1-fold higher risk of hospitalisation (95% CI 1.1-4.4, p = 0.034) and a 68.2% higher peak of bilirubin levels (95% CI 13.3-149.9, p = 0.010), independently of other factors included in the model. In addition, acute clade efg infections were characterised by higher serum CXCL10 levels (p = 0.0005) and a more pronounced liver necro-inflammatory activity (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic HEV gt3 infections, clade efg is associated with a more severe disease presentation, higher serum CXCL10 levels, and liver necro-inflammatory activity, irrespective of known host risk factors. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was submitted to clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04670419). IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: HEV genotype (gt) 3 infections display a wide spectrum of clinical presentations currently ascribed to host factors. Here we examined the role of viral factors on liver disease outcomes by combining viral phylogeny with clinical, biochemical, cytokine, and histological data from 274 Belgian adults infected with HEV presenting between 2010 and 2018. HEV gt 3 clade efg infections were associated with a more severe disease presentation, higher serum CXCL10 levels and liver necro-inflammatory activity, irrespective of known host risk factors. HEV gt3 clade-dependent clinical outcomes call for broad HEV gt3 subtyping in clinical practice and research to help identify those at higher risk for worse outcomes and to further unravel underlying virus-host interactions.

Not enough SPIRIT shown in the registration and reporting of orthodontic trial protocols.

BACKGROUND: To reduce bias associated with selective reporting, the registration and publication of clinical trial protocols before or at the time of patient enrolment has been advocated. The aim of this investigation was to assess the frequency of registration and reporting adherence of orthodontic trial protocols pre- and post-introduction of the Standard Protocol Items Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Statement. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Trial protocols registered in four online registries were sourced at two time periods: (1 January 2010-1 January 2013) and (1 January 2017-1 January 2021). Protocols were screened and data extracted, in duplicate and independently. The reporting adherence of each protocol was assessed in relation to the thirty-three item SPIRIT statement. Fisher's exact test was used to determine associations between time periods and trial protocol characteristics. Median regression was implemented to assess potential associations between the percent score per protocol and protocol characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 100 protocols were analysed. Thirty-three and sixty-seven protocols were registered in the first and second time periods, respectively. An association between period and the timing of registration (prospectively or retrospectively) (P < 0.001) and funding source (University or Company) (P < 0.001) was evident. Overall, 25 of the 33 (75.5%) SPIRIT statement items were not reported in either timeframe. The median percent reporting quality score was 26.9 (IQR 6.9). The type of registry was associated with percent scores and published studies received better percent scores compared to unpublished studies and academic or private protocol submissions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a general lack of awareness of the importance and relevance of the SPIRIT statement. Registration of orthodontic trial protocols has apparently improved; however, 75.5% SPIRIT statement items were not reported in either study time period. The registration and reporting of orthodontic trial protocols should be advocated to circumvent issues relating to selective reporting and outcome reporting bias.

Update on the clinical trial landscape: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov registration data, 2000-2020.

BACKGROUND: The clinical trial landscape has evolved over the last two decades, shaped by advances in therapeutics and drug development and innovation in trial design and methods. The tracking of such changes became possible with trial registration, providing the public with a window into the massive clinical research enterprise. The ClinicalTrials.gov website was launched in 2000 by the NIH National Library of Medicine and is the largest clinical trial registry worldwide. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the composition and methodologic features of clinical trials as registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and to identify trends over time. METHODS: We analyzed data from the publicly available Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, focusing on trials (interventional studies) started between 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2020. Characteristics of design (e.g., phase, randomization, use of masking, number of treatment groups, sample size), eligibility criteria (age groups, gender), interventions, conditions, and funders (primary sponsor) were tabulated over time, by year trial started. RESULTS: There were 274,043 registered interventional studies (trials) included in the analysis. Most trials were reported as randomized (65%); single site (60%); parallel-group (56%); funded by other sources (e.g., individuals, universities, and community-based organizations) (65%); and involving drug interventions (55%). Notable trends include an increase in the proportion of registered trials without FDA-defined phases ("Phase N/A") over time, a decrease in proportion of trials that involve drugs or report treatment as a primary purpose, declining sample size and time to complete trials, and an increase in proportion of trials reporting results among completed trials. The proportion of missing registration fields has also decreased over time and more trials make protocols and other documents available. There is a current need to expand the registration fields in ClinicalTrials.gov to adapt to the evolving trial designs and reduce the number of trials categorized as "other." Observed trends may be explained by changes in trial regulations as well as expanding and evolving trial designs, interventions, and outcome types. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial registration has transformed how trial information is accessed, disseminated, and used. As clinical trials evolve and regulations change, trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, will continue to provide a means to access and follow trials over time, thus informing future trial design and highlighting the value of this tremendous resource.

The effect of androgen administration on in vitro fertilization outcome in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation with microdose protocol: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE(S): Patients with poor ovarian response who have reduced ovarian reserve sometimes despite the maximum dose of gonadotropins do not respond properly. Androgens have been shown to play an important role in the early follicular development and proliferation of granulosa cells. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of androgen administration on IVF outcome in poor responders. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 poor responder women candidate for controlled ovarian stimulation were randomly enrolled in two groups (n = 30/each). In the intervention group testosterone gel added to the interrupted microdose flare protocol. The control group received the conventional microdose flare protocol. RESULTS: The main outcome was clinical and chemical pregnancy; and the second outcomes were the number of mature oocytes, duration of cycle and total dose of gonadotropins. Basic clinical and demographic features were comparable between the groups. The total gonadotropin consumption were significantly higher in the control group than the intervention group (p = 0.047). In addition, the number of MII oocytes was higher (but not significant) in the intervention group than the control group (p = 0.16). The mean total duration of the cycle was equal in both groups. There were no significant differences in chemical and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups (p = 0.41, p = 0.67). CONCLUSION(S): The results of the current study showed that androgen administration in poor responders in in vitro fertilization reduces the total dose of gonadotropin, but it does not improve the pregnancy outcomes.

Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials. RESULTS: None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry. CONCLUSION: Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.

Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request. METHODS: We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times. RESULTS: Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%. CONCLUSIONS: Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.