23 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
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 organizationâfunded 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 organizationâfunded 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
Recommended from our members
New Regulatory Paradigms for Innovative Drugs to Treat Pediatric Diseases
Recommended from our members
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 24â28] and 26% [95%CI 25â28], respectively). A total of 26% (95%CI 25â28) and 29% (95%CI 27â31) 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 71â74) of patients were treated with only one antiepileptic drug, with similar rates for patients started on first- and second-generation drugs (71% [95%CI 69â73] vs 74% [95%CI 72â76]). 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
Recommended from our members
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 69â165 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
Recommended from our members
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.1â3 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
Recommended from our members
Postmarketing Trials and Pediatric Device Approvals
BACKGROUND: Medical devices can be useful in a variety of diseases, but few devices have been specifically approved for use in children. The 2007 Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act was passed to stimulate pediatric device development. The current state of trial evidence underpinning the approval of pediatric devices remains poorly described.
METHODS: We identified all high-risk (ie, class III) devices approved through the premarket approval or humanitarian device exemption pathways for therapeutic use in children between 2008 and 2011. We collected key information on clinical trial design (randomization, blinding, controls, and types of end points) as well as age distribution of trial participants. We also identified US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)âmandated postmarketing trials.
RESULTS: Twenty-two devices were approved for use in children via the premarket approval pathway and 3 via the humanitarian device exemption pathway. Twenty-two (88%) qualified as pediatric despite minimum approval ages of â„18 years (the FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health considers patients 18â21 years old as pediatric). Most devices were approved on the basis of nonrandomized (59%), open-label (68%) studies with surrogate effectiveness end points (86%). Overall, 21 (84%) devices were not studied in any patients <18 years of age. Postmarketing studies were mandated by the FDA for 19 (76%) devices, although only 3 (18%) required enrollment of pediatric patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk pediatric devices are approved on the basis of trials in patients â„18 years old, with few pediatric patients exposed to the devices before market availability. Few postmarketing studies require additional study in pediatric patients