Outcome Reporting Among Drug Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Background: Clinical trial registries are in widespread use to promote transparency around trials and their results. Objective: To describe characteristics of drug trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov and examine whether the funding source of these trials is associated with favorable published outcomes. Design: An observational study of safety and efficacy trials for anticholesteremics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton-pump inhibitors, and vasodilators conducted between 2000 and 2006. Setting: ClinicalTrials.gov, a Web-based registry of clinical trials launched in 1999. Measurements: Publications resulting from the trials for the 5 drug categories of interest were identified, and data were abstracted on the trial record and publication, including timing of registration, elements of the study design, funding source, publication date, and study outcomes. Assessments were based on the primary funding categories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations. Results: Among 546 drug trials, 346 (63%) were primarily funded by industry, 74 (14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations. Trials funded by industry were more likely to be phase 3 or 4 trials (88.7%; P < 0.001 across groups), to use an active comparator in controlled trials (36.8%; P = 0.010 across groups), to be multicenter (89.0%; P < 0.001 across groups), and to enroll more participants (median sample size, 306 participants; P < 0.001 across groups). Overall, 362 (66.3%) trials had published results. Industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes in 85.4% of publications, compared with 50.0% for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization–funded trials (P < 0.001). Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributions were also more likely to report positive outcomes than those without industry funding (85.0% vs. 61.2%; P = 0.013). Rates of trial publication within 24 months of study completion ranged from 32.4% among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization–funded trials without industry contributions (P = 0.005 across groups). Limitations: The publication status of a trial could not always be confirmed, which could result in misclassification. Additional information on study protocols and comprehensive trial results were not available to further explore underlying factors for the association between funding source and outcome reporting. Conclusion: In this sample of registered drug trials, those funded by industry were less likely to be published within 2 years of study completion and were more likely to report positive outcomes than were trials funded by other sources

The Challenges of Regulatory Pluralism

Countries with small and/or less-resourced regulatory authorities that operate outside of a larger medical product regulatory system face a regulatory strategy dilemma. These countries may rely on foreign well-resourced regulators by recognizing the regulatory decisions of large systems and following suit (regulatory reliance); alternatively, such countries may extend formal decision recognition to regulators in multiple other jurisdictions with similar oversight and public health goals, following a system which we call regulatory pluralism. In this policy comment, we discuss three potential limitations to regulatory pluralism: (i) regulatory escape, in which manufacturers exploit regulatory variation and choose the lowest regulatory threshold for their product; (ii) increased fragmentation and complexity for countries adopting this approach, which may, in turn, lead to inconsistent processes; and (iii) loss of international bargaining power in developing regulatory policies. We argue that regulatory pluralism has important long-term implications, which may not be readily apparent to policy makers opting for such an approach. We advocate for the long-term value of an alternative approach relying on greater collaboration between regulatory authorities, which may relieve administrative pressures on countries with small or less-resourced regulatory authorities, regardless of whether countries pursue a strategy of domestic regulation or regulatory pluralism

Comparison of Drug Utilization Patterns in Observational Data: Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Patients

Purpose: Physicians require information on the comparative benefits and harms of medications for optimal treatment decisions. However, this type of data is limited, especially for pediatric patients. Objective: Our aim was to use observational data to measure and compare medication utilization patterns in a pediatric patient population. Methods: Using pharmacy claims data from a large, national-scale insurance program in the US, we identified all patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy treated with a first-generation (carabamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate) or second-generation (carbamazepine XR, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate XR, zonisamide) antiepileptic drug. Treatment periods were defined based on prescription fill dates and medication days supplied. Medication use was measured for individual antiepileptic drugs and for first-generation and second-generation drugs as groups. Results: There were 2527 (54%) patients who initiated therapy with first-generation and 2139 (46%) with second-generation antiepileptics. First- and second-generation drugs had the same one-year retention rates (26% [95%CI 24–28] and 26% [95%CI 25–28], respectively). A total of 26% (95%CI 25–28) and 29% (95%CI 27–31) of patients who started on a first- or second-generation antiepileptic medication, respectively, resumed treatment with the initial drug after discontinuation. Overall, 73% (95%CI 71–74) of patients were treated with only one antiepileptic drug, with similar rates for patients started on first- and second-generation drugs (71% [95%CI 69–73] vs 74% [95%CI 72–76]). Conclusions: Comparing drug utilization patterns in a pediatric population using observational data, we found similar rates of retention and therapeutic changes. These findings are consistent with available comparative data and demonstrate an approach that could be extended to other drug classes and conditions in pediatric populations to examine drug effectiveness

Investigation of hospital discharge cases and SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Lothian care homes

Background The first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Scotland resulted in high case numbers and mortality in care homes. In Lothian, over one-third of care homes reported an outbreak, while there was limited testing of hospital patients discharged to care homes. Aim To investigate patients discharged from hospitals as a source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction into care homes during the first epidemic wave. Methods A clinical review was performed for all patients discharges from hospitals to care homes from 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. Episodes were ruled out based on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test history, clinical assessment at discharge, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data and an infectious period of 14 days. Clinical samples were processed for WGS, and consensus genomes generated were used for analysis using Cluster Investigation and Virus Epidemiological Tool software. Patient timelines were obtained using electronic hospital records. Findings In total, 787 patients discharged from hospitals to care homes were identified. Of these, 776 (99%) were ruled out for subsequent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes. However, for 10 episodes, the results were inconclusive as there was low genomic diversity in consensus genomes or no sequencing data were available. Only one discharge episode had a genomic, time and location link to positive cases during hospital admission, leading to 10 positive cases in their care home. Conclusion The majority of patients discharged from hospitals were ruled out for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes, highlighting the importance of screening all new admissions when faced with a novel emerging virus and no available vaccine

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is an immune escape variant with an altered cell entry pathway

Vaccines based on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. The emergence of hypermutated, increasingly transmissible variants of concern (VOCs) threaten this strategy. Omicron (B.1.1.529), the fifth VOC to be described, harbours multiple amino acid mutations in spike, half of which lie within the receptor-binding domain. Here we demonstrate substantial evasion of neutralization by Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants in vitro using sera from individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. These data were mirrored by a substantial reduction in real-world vaccine effectiveness that was partially restored by booster vaccination. The Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 did not induce cell syncytia in vitro and favoured a TMPRSS2-independent endosomal entry pathway, these phenotypes mapping to distinct regions of the spike protein. Impaired cell fusion was determined by the receptor-binding domain, while endosomal entry mapped to the S2 domain. Such marked changes in antigenicity and replicative biology may underlie the rapid global spread and altered pathogenicity of the Omicron variant

Discontinuation and Nonpublication of Randomized Clinical Trials Conducted in Children

BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation and nonpublication represent potential waste in research resources and lead to compromises in medical evidence. Pediatric trials may be particularly vulnerable to these outcomes given the challenges encountered in conducting trials in children. We aimed to determine the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in pediatric populations. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of pediatric RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2010. Data were collected from the registry and associated publications identified (final search on September 1, 2015). RESULTS: Of 559 trials, 104 (19%) were discontinued early, accounting for an estimated 8369 pediatric participants. Difficulty with patient accrual (37%) was the most commonly cited reason for discontinuation. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if they were funded by industry compared with academic institutions (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.77). Of the 455 completed trials, 136 (30%) were not published, representing 69 165 pediatric participants. Forty-two unpublished trials posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by industry were more than twice as likely to result in nonpublication at 24 and 36 months (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.35-3.64; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.6-6.08, respectively) and had a longer mean time to publication compared with trials sponsored by academia (33 vs 24 months, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of pediatric RCTs, discontinuation and nonpublication were common, with thousands of children exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative or published findings. Trial funding source was an important determinant of these outcomes, with both academic and industry sponsors contributing to inefficiencies

Industry influence in evidence production

In light of a number of recent drug development and marketing controversies, there is increasing public focus on the role of industry in determining how drugs are used.1–3 New methods that evaluate how funding has influenced the design, reporting, and synthesis of evidence from clinical trials have identified the breadth of industry involvement in evidence production. The downstream effects on public health remain difficult to quantify. In order to identify and mitigate the potential effects of any one type of trial sponsor, we argue that these new methods should now be used routinely and systematically, in a process we call evidence surveillance