Study design, result reporting and publication of late-stage cardiovascular trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Kapelios ◽  
H Naci ◽  
P Vardas ◽  
E Mossialos
Keyword(s):  
Study Design ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Design Result

Abstract Introduction Preregistration of study protocols in publicly accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on the characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited. Methods The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of late-stage, cardiovascular disease (CVD) trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. We searched for interventional, late-phase (annotated as phase III) CVD studies in adults first posted after 1/1/2013 and completed up to 31/12/2018. Data on study design, result reporting, result spinning and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined. Results The search yielded 352 studies. One hundred were excluded from further analysis because they were misclassified as CVD studies, while 2 were excluded as duplicate entries. In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. The most commonly studied fields were hypertension, coronary artery disease and heart failure. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. 179 trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P<0.001 and 55.0% vs. 26.3%, P=0.033, respectively). Sixty three studies (25.2%) had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov, and 116 (46.4%) had results published in the scientific literature. No clear indication of result spinning was found in 96 (85%) of published studies. In multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship was statistically significantly associated with results posting (OR: 3.56; 95% CI:1.67–7.60, P=0.001) and publication (OR: 0.41; 95% CI:0.23–0.75, P=0.004). Results spinning was associated with confirmation of the primary hypothesis (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.07–0.75, P=0.015) and results posting (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.65, P=0.018). Conclusions Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only 1/4 had their results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and less than half had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Having industry as a sponsor was independently associated with increased likelihood of results posting, but decreased likelihood of results publication. Results reporting was significantly associated with lower risk of results spinning. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Study design, result posting, and publication of late-stage cardiovascular trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris J Kapelios ◽  
Huseyin Naci ◽  
Panos E Vardas ◽  
Elias Mossialos
Keyword(s):  
Study Design ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Design Result

Abstract Aims Pre-registration of study protocols in accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited. Methods and results We searched for interventional, late-phase cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies in adults registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. first posted after 1 January 2013 and completed up to 31 December 2018. Data on study design, result reporting, and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined. In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. One hundred and seventy-nine trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. The most common primary outcomes were non-clinical endpoints (76.0%), with only 17% of studies evaluating clinical endpoints. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P < 0.001 and 55.0% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.033, respectively). Sixty-three studies (25.2%) had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov, and 116 (46.4%) had results published in the scientific literature. In multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship was statistically significantly associated with results posting [odds ratio (OR): 3.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.56–7.30, P = 0.002] and publication (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23–0.75, P = 0.004). Conclusion Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only one-fourth had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and <50% had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have their results posted, but less likely to have their results published in the scientific literature.

The association of adaptive early phase study design and late phase study results in oncology using clinicaltrials.gov data.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14078-e14078
Author(s):  
Donna Elise Levy ◽  
Srikanta Banerjee ◽  
Fred K Tabung
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Adaptive Methods ◽  
Positive Outcome ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Phase Study

e14078 Background: Traditional methods such as the 3+3 design developed in the 1940s continue to be used in the majority of early phase oncology studies. Researchers have found that the traditional methods identify the appropriate dose level only 30% of the time. Patients are also exposed to sub-therapeutic doses due to the conservative methods. With these limitations on traditional design options, innovative methods need to be developed, adopted and assessed. Methods: This quantitative study assessed the association of the design methods (adaptive versus traditional) used for early phase oncology studies (adaptive versus traditional) and the outcome of late stage clinical trials. Differences by cancer type and by drug classification were also assessed. A sample of studies for this analysis was extracted from the National Institute of Health Clinical registry and results database. The data used for the analysis was extracted by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT). Results: When assessing study design and outcome, there were lower odds of a positive outcome when adaptive methods were used though this association was not statistically significant (OR [95% highest posterior density (HPD)]:0.66 [0.20, 1.21]). Among the different drug types, using adaptive compared to traditional methods was associated with significantly higher odds of a positive outcome for taxanes, OR: 2.75, 95% HPD: 1.01, 5.16) and other, OR: 3.23, 95% HPD: 1.58, 5.46) but no association among studies of monoclonal antibodies or protein kinase inhibitors. There were no significant associations between early phase study design and outcome in late phase studies by cancer type (lung, breast, other). Conclusions: While results associated with the use of adaptive methods were not significant, further research should be conducted using all completed oncology clinical trials in the database to more precisely determine the relationship between adaptive study design in early phase oncology studies and outcomes in late stage studies. In addition, improvements in traditional versus adaptive design capture in the ClinicalTrials.gov database needs to be considered.

Clodronate compared to ibandronate breast cancer bone metastases patient preference study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1068-1068
Author(s):  
S. Jagdev ◽  
H. Berry ◽  
A. Newsham ◽  
A. Smith ◽  
L. Flanagan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Preference Assessment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Study Results ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Preference Study ◽  
Oral Clodronate

1068 Background: The use of bisphosphonates for patients with breast cancer bone metastases confers significant benefits. Prolonged IV bisphosphonate use burdens both patients and services and oral clodronate is often used. Ibandronate is a potent oral third generation bisphosphonate which is effective and well tolerated in patients with metastastic breast cancer. In Phase III studies, the incidence of adverse events for oral ibandronate was similar to placebo. Clodronate requires prolonged fasting and size of tablets and gastric irritation may be problematic, therefore ibandronate may provide advantages. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ preferences between oral ibandronate and oral clodronate and to assess the reasons for preference. Methods: This randomised, open-label, cross-over study recruited 46 women with breast cancer bone metastases who were starting or established on IV bisphosphonates. Patients were randomised to receive one drug for two months then crossed over to the second for two months. 23 patients received ibandronate then clodronate and 23 received clodronate first. Patients completed questionnaires on pain and symptoms at baseline, at crossover and on completion of the study. Patient preferences were assessed at the end of the study. Results: Data on 41 patients were available for preference assessment in this initial analysis. 5 patients discontinued the study. 26/41 patients preferred ibandronate (63.4%) and 14/41 preferred clodronate (34.5%) (c2=3.10, p=0.078). 1 patient did not state a preference. Significantly more patients receiving ibandronate first preferred ibandronate (13/18), compared with those receiving clodronate first expressing a preference for clodronate (10/23) (c2 =6.44, p= 0.011). Tablet size (p=0.001) and number (p<0.001) scored highly as reasons for preference for ibandronate. The following toxicities were reported on ibandronate and clodronate respectively: nausea (17%, 9.7%), indigestion (9.7%, 4.8%) and pain flare (7.3%, 4.8%). Conclusions: Significantly more patients preferred oral ibandronate compared with oral clodronate, with size and number of tablets being important reasons for preference. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Further improvement in glycemic control after switching from exenatide two times per day to exenatide once-weekly autoinjected suspension in patients with type 2 diabetes: 52-week results from the DURATION-NEO-1 study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000773
Author(s):  
Carol H Wysham ◽  
Julio Rosenstock ◽  
Marion L Vetter ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Elise Hardy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Efficacy Measures ◽  
Design And Methods ◽  
To Receive

IntroductionInvestigate the effects of switching from two times per day exenatide to once-weekly exenatide administered by autoinjector (exenatide once-weekly suspension by autoinjector (QWS-AI)) or treatment with exenatide QWS-AI for 1 year.Research design and methodsIn this phase III open-label study, adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive exenatide QWS-AI (2 mg) or exenatide two times per day (5 mcg for 4 weeks, followed by 10 mcg) for 28 weeks. During a subsequent non-randomized 24-week extension, patients who received exenatide two times per day were switched to exenatide QWS-AI and those randomized to exenatide QWS-AI continued this treatment. Efficacy measures included changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (A1C), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight.ResultsIn total, 315 patients (mean baseline A1C of 8.5%) completed the initial 28 weeks of randomized treatment with exenatide QWS-AI (n=197) or exenatide two times per day (n=118) and were included in the 24-week extension (mean A1C of 7.0% and 7.3%, respectively, at week 28). From weeks 28–52, patients who switched from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI had additional A1C reductions of approximately 0.5% (mean A1C change from baseline of –1.4% at week 52) and further reductions from baseline in FPG. Patients who continued exenatide QWS-AI treatment for 52 weeks showed clinically relevant A1C reductions (mean A1C change from baseline of –1.3% at week 52). Body-weight reductions achieved through week 28 were sustained at week 52 in both groups. There were no unexpected safety concerns or changes in the safety profile among patients who switched from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI or those who continued exenatide QWS-AI treatment for 52 weeks.ConclusionsSwitching from exenatide two times per day to exenatide QWS-AI resulted in further A1C reductions and maintenance of earlier decreases in body weight, while continued therapy with exenatide QWS-AI for 52 weeks maintained A1C and body-weight reductions, without additional safety or tolerability concerns.Trial registration numberNCT01652716.

scholarly journals Protocol for a randomised clinical trial of multimodal postconcussion symptom treatment and recovery: the Concussion Essentials study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e041458
Author(s):  
Vicki Anderson ◽  
Vanessa C Rausa ◽  
Nicholas Anderson ◽  
Georgia Parkin ◽  
Cathriona Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Postconcussive Symptoms ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Initial Injury

IntroductionWhile most children recover from a concussion shortly after injury, approximately 30% experience persistent postconcussive symptoms (pPCS) beyond 1-month postinjury. Existing research into the treatment of pPCS have evaluated unimodal approaches, despite evidence suggesting that pPCS likely represent an interaction across various symptom clusters. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal, symptom-tailored intervention to accelerate symptom recovery and increase the proportion of children with resolved symptoms at 3 months postconcussion.Methods and analysisIn this open-label, assessor-blinded, randomised clinical trial, children with concussion aged 8–18 years will be recruited from The Royal Children’s Hospital (The RCH) emergency department, or referred by a clinician, within 17 days of initial injury. Based on parent ratings of their child’s PCS at ~10 days postinjury, symptomatic children (≥2 symptoms at least 1-point above those endorsed preinjury) will undergo a baseline assessment at 3 weeks postinjury and randomised into either Concussion Essentials (CE, n=108), a multimodal, interdisciplinary delivered, symptom-tailored treatment involving physiotherapy, psychology and education, or usual care (UC, n=108) study arms. CE participants will receive 1 hour of intervention each week, for up to 8 weeks or until pPCS resolve. A postprogramme assessment will be conducted at 3 months postinjury for all participants. Effectiveness of the CE intervention will be determined by the proportion of participants for whom pPCS have resolved at the postprogramme assessment (primary outcome) relative to the UC group. Secondary outcome analyses will examine whether children receiving CE are more likely to demonstrate resolution of pPCS, earlier return to normal activity, higher quality of life and a lower rate of utilisation of health services, compared with the UC group.Ethics and disseminationEthics were approved by The RCH Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC: 37100). Parent, and for mature minors, participant consent, will be obtained prior to commencement of the trial. Study results will be disseminated at international conferences and international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000418370; pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document