Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register.

BACKGROUND: January 2019, the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee sent letters to UK universities admonishing them to achieve compliance with results reporting requirements for Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products by summer 2019. This study documents changes in the clinical trial policies and Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product reporting performance of 20 major UK universities following that intervention. METHODS: Freedom of Information requests were filed in June 2018 and June 2020 to obtain clinical trial registration and reporting policies covering both Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products and all other clinical trials. Two independent reviewers assessed policies against transparency benchmarks based on World Health Organization best practices. To evaluate universities' trial reporting performance, we used a public online tracking tool, the European Union Trials Tracker, which assesses universities' compliance with regulatory Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product disclosure requirements on the European Clinical Trial Register. Specifically, we evaluated whether universities were adhering to the European Union requirement to post summary results on the trial registry within 12 months of completion. RESULTS: Mean policy strength increased from 2.8 to 4.9 points (out of a maximum of 7 points) between June 2018 and June 2020. In October 2018 the average percentage of due Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products that had results available on the European trial registry across university sponsors included in the cohort was 29%. By June 2021, this had increased to 91%, with 5 universities achieving a reporting performance of 100%. All 20 universities reported more than 70% of their due trial results on the European trial registry. INTERPRETATION: Political pressure appears to have a significant positive impact on UK universities' clinical trial reporting policies and performance. Similar approaches could be used to improve reporting performance for other types of sponsors, other types of trials, and in other countries.

University patenting and licensing practices in the United Kingdom during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Universities' decisions during technology transfer may affect affordability, accessibility, and availability of COVID-19 health technologies downstream. We investigated measures taken by the top 35 publicly funded UK universities to ensure global equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies between January and end of October 2020. We sent Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests and analysed universities' websites, to (i) assess institutional strategies on the patenting and licensing of COVID-19-related health technologies, (ii) identify all COVID-19-related health technologies licensed or patented and (iii) record whether universities engaged with the Open COVID pledge, COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), or Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) COVID-19 licensing guidelines during the time period assessed. Except for the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh, UK universities did not update their institutional strategies during the first year of the pandemic. Nine universities licensed 22 COVID-19 health technologies. Imperial College London disclosed ten patents relevant to COVID-19. No UK universities participated in the Open COVID Pledge or C-TAP, but discussions were ongoing in autumn 2020. The University of Bristol endorsed the AUTM guidelines. Despite important COVID-19 health technologies being developed by UK universities, our findings suggest minimal engagement with measures that may promote equitable access downstream. We suggest universities review their technology transfer policies and implement global equitable access strategies for COVID-19 health technologies. We furthermore propose that public and charitable funders can play a larger role in encouraging universities to adopt such practices by making access and transparency clauses a mandatory condition for receiving public funds for research.

Adoption of World Health Organization Best Practices in Clinical Trial Transparency Among European Medical Research Funder Policies.

Importance: Research funders can reduce research waste and publication bias by requiring their grantees to register and report clinical trials. Objective: To determine the extent to which 21 major European research funders' efforts to reduce research waste and publication bias in clinical trials meet World Health Organization (WHO) best practice benchmarks and to investigate areas for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was based on 2 to 3 independent assessments of each funder's publicly available documentation and validation of results with funders during 2021. Included funders were the 21 largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic medical research funders in Europe, with a combined budget of more than US $22 billion. Exposures: Scoring of funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into 4 broad categories: trial registries, academic publication, monitoring, and sanctions. Funder references to reporting standards were captured. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was funder adoption or nonadoption of 11 policy and monitoring measures to reduce research waste and publication bias as set out by WHO best practices. The secondary outcomes were whether and how funder policies referred to reporting standards. Outcomes were preregistered after a pilot phase that used the same outcome measures. Results: Among 21 of the largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic funders in Europe, some best practices were more widely adopted than others, with 14 funders (66.7%) mandating prospective trial registration and 6 funders (28.6%) requiring that trial results be made public on trial registries within 12 months of trial completion. Less than half of funders actively monitored whether trials were registered (9 funders [42.9%]) or whether results were made public (8 funders [38.1%]). Funders implemented a mean of 4 of 11 best practices in clinical trial transparency (36.4%) set out by WHO. The extent to which funders adopted WHO best practice items varied widely, ranging from 0 practices for the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the ministries of health of Germany and Italy to 10 practices (90.9%) for the UK National Institute of Health Research. Overall, 9 funders referred to reporting standards in their policies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that many European medical research funder policy and monitoring measures fell short of WHO best practices. These findings suggest that funders worldwide may need to identify and address gaps in policies and processes.

Missing clinical trial data: the evidence gap in primary data for potential COVID-19 drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several drugs are being repurposed for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic based on in vitro or early clinical findings. As these drugs are being used in varied regimens and dosages, it is important to enable synthesis of existing safety data from clinical trials. However, availability of safety information is limited by a lack of timely reporting of overall clinical trial results on public registries or through academic publication. We aimed to analyse the evidence gap in this data by conducting a rapid review of results posting on ClinicalTrials.gov and in academic publications to quantify the number of trials missing results for drugs potentially being repurposed for COVID-19. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for 19 drugs that have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Relevant clinical trials for any prior indication were listed by identifier (NCT number) and checked for results and for timely result reporting (within 395 days of the primary completion date). Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications of results not listed on the registry. A second, blinded search of 10% of trials was conducted to assess reviewer concordance. RESULTS: Of 3754 completed trials, 1516 (40.4%) did not post results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in the academic literature. Tabular results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for 1172 (31.2%) completed trials. A further 1066 (28.4%) had published results in the academic literature, but did not report results on ClinicalTrials.gov . Key drugs missing clinical trial results include hydroxychloroquine (37.0% completed trials unreported), favipiravir (77.8%) and lopinavir (40.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There is an important evidence gap for the safety of drugs being repurposed for COVID-19. This uncertainty could cause unnecessary additional morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. We recommend caution in experimental drug use for non-severe disease and urge clinical trial sponsors to report missing results retrospectively.

Clinical trial reporting performance of thirty UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov-evaluation of a new tracking tool for the US clinical trial registry.

Clinical trial transparency forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and trial sponsors, especially publicly funded institutions such as universities, have an ethical and scientific responsibility to make the results of clinical trials publicly available in a timely fashion. We assessed whether the thirty UK universities receiving the most Medical Research Council funding in 2017-2018 complied with World Health Organization best practices for clinical trial reporting on the US Clinical Trial Registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Firstly, we developed and evaluated a novel automated tracking tool ( clinical-trials-tracker.com ) for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov . This tracker identifies the number of due trials (whose completion lies more than 395 days in the past) that have not reported results on the registry and can now be used for all sponsors. Secondly, we used the tracker to determine the number of due clinical trials sponsored by the selected UK universities in October 2020. Thirdly, using the FDAAA Trials Tracker, we identified trials sponsored by these universities that are not complying with reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. Finally, we quantified the average and median number of days between primary completion date and results posting. In October 2020, the universities included in our study were sponsoring 1634 due trials, only 1.6% (n = 26) of which had reported results within a year of completion. 89.8% (n = 1468) of trials remained unreported, and 8.6% (n = 140) of trials reported results late. We also identified 687 trials that contained inconsistent data, suggesting that UK universities often fail to update their data adequately on ClinicalTrials.gov . The mean reporting delay after primary completion for trials that posted results was 981 days, the median 728 days. Only four trials by UK universities violated the FDAAA 2007. We suggest a number of reasons for the poor reporting performance of UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov : (i) efforts to improve clinical trial reporting in the UK have to date focused on the European clinical trial registry (EU CTR), (ii) the absence of a tracking tool for timely reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov has limited the visibility of institutions' reporting performance on the US registry and (iii) there is currently a lack of repercussions for UK sponsors who fail to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov which should be addressed in the future.

Making a COVID-19 vaccine that works for everyone: ensuring equity and inclusivity in clinical trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and morbidity have been shown to increase with deprivation and impact non-White ethnicities more severely. Despite the extra risk Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity (BAME) groups face in the pandemic, our current medical research system seems to prioritise innovation aimed at people of European descent. We found significant difficulties in assessing baseline demographics in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, displaying a lack of transparency in reporting. Further, we found that most of these trials take place in high-income countries, with only 25 of 219 trials (11.4%) taking place in lower middle- or low-income countries. Trials for the current best vaccine candidates (BNT162b2, ChadOx1, mRNA-173) recruited 80.0% White participants. Underrepresentation of BAME groups in medical research will perpetuate historical distrust in healthcare processes, and poses a risk of unknown differences in efficacy and safety of these vaccines by phenotype. Limiting trial demographics and settings will mean a lack of global applicability of the results of COVID-19 vaccine trials, which will slow progress towards ending the pandemic.

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

OBJECTIVES: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. RESULTS: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search. CONCLUSION: Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.