Article

The ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database - Update and Key Issues

Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 03/2011; 364(9):852-60. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry was expanded in 2008 to include a database for reporting summary results. We summarize the structure and contents of the results database, provide an update of relevant policies, and show how the data can be used to gain insight into the state of clinical research.
We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov data that were publicly available between September 2009 and September 2010.
As of September 27, 2010, ClinicalTrials.gov received approximately 330 new and 2000 revised registrations each week, along with 30 new and 80 revised results submissions. We characterized the 79,413 registry and 2178 results of trial records available as of September 2010. From a sample cohort of results records, 78 of 150 (52%) had associated publications within 2 years after posting. Of results records available publicly, 20% reported more than two primary outcome measures and 5% reported more than five. Of a sample of 100 registry record outcome measures, 61% lacked specificity in describing the metric used in the planned analysis. In a sample of 700 results records, the mean number of different analysis populations per study group was 2.5 (median, 1; range, 1 to 25). Of these trials, 24% reported results for 90% or less of their participants.
ClinicalTrials.gov provides access to study results not otherwise available to the public. Although the database allows examination of various aspects of ongoing and completed clinical trials, its ultimate usefulness depends on the research community to submit accurate, informative data.

1 Bookmark
 · 
139 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations"). To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. Retrospective analysis. All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size. Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure. © Köhler et al 2015.
    BMJ Clinical Research 01/2015; 350:h796. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based medicine rests on the assumption that treatment recommendations are robust, free from bias, and include results of all randomized clinical trials. The Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials search and analysis methodology was applied to create databases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and central post-stroke pain (CPSP) trials and adapted to create the Repository of Registered Analgesic Device Studies databases for trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We identified 34 CRPS trials, 18 CPSP trials, 72 trials of SCS, and 92 trials of rTMS/tDCS. Irrespective of time since study completion, 45% of eligible CRPS and CPSP trials and 46% of eligible SCS and rTMS/tDCS trials had available results (peer-reviewed literature, results entered on registry, or gray literature); peer-reviewed publications could be found for 38% and 39%, respectively. Examining almost 1000 trials across a spectrum of painful disorders (fibromyalgia, diabetic painful neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, migraine, CRPS, CPSP) and types of treatment, no single study characteristic consistently predicts unavailability of results. Results availability is higher 12 months after study completion but remains below 60% for peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations to increase results availability include supporting organizations advocating for transparency, enforcing existing results reporting regulations, enabling all primary registries to post results, stating trial registration numbers in all publication abstracts, and reducing barriers to publishing "negative" trials. For all diseases and treatment modalities, evidence-based medicine must rigorously adjust for the sheer magnitude of missing results in formulating treatment recommendations.
    Pain 01/2015; 156(1):72-80. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.0000000000000009 · 5.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adjuvants improve the adaptive immune response to a vaccine antigen by modulating innate immunity or facilitating transport and presentation. The selection of an appropriate adjuvant has become vital as new vaccines trend toward narrower composition, expanded application, and improved safety. Functionally, adjuvants act directly or indirectly on antigen presenting cells (APCs) including dendritic cells (DCs) and are perceived as having molecular patterns associated either with pathogen invasion or endogenous cell damage (known as pathogen associated molecular patterns and damage associated molecular patterns [DAMPs]), thereby initiating sensing and response pathways. PAMP-type adjuvants are ligands for toll-like receptors (TLRs) and can directly affect DCs to alter the strength, potency, speed, duration, bias, breadth and scope of adaptive immunity. DAMP-type adjuvants signal via proinflammatory pathways and promote immune cell infiltration, antigen presentation, and effector cell maturation. This class of adjuvants includes mineral salts, oil emulsions, nanoparticles and polyelectrolytes and comprises colloids and molecular assemblies exhibiting complex, heterogeneous structures. Today innovation in adjuvant technology is driven by rapidly expanding knowledge in immunology, cross-fertilization from other areas including systems biology and materials sciences, and regulatory requirements for quality, safety, efficacy and understanding as part of the vaccine product. Standardizations will aid efforts to better define and compare the structure, function and safety of adjuvants. This article briefly surveys the genesis of adjuvant technology and then re-examines polyionic macromolecules and polyelectrolyte materials, adjuvants currently not known to employ TLR. Specific updates are provided for aluminum-based formulations and polyelectrolytes as examples of improvements to the oldest and emerging classes of vaccine adjuvants in use.
    01/2015; 4(1):23-45. DOI:10.7774/cevr.2015.4.1.23

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from