Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

International audienceBackground: The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status.Methods: We explored all interventional studies sponsored by Rennes University Hospital identified on the French Open Science Monitor which tracks trials registered on EUCTR or clinicaltrials.gov, and provides an automatic assessment of the reporting of results. For each study, we ascertained the actual reporting of results using systematic searches on the hospital internal database, bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed), and by contacting all principal investigators (PIs). We describe several features (including total budget and numbers of trial participants) of the studies that did not report any results.Results: The French Open Science Monitor identified 93 interventional studies, among which 10 (11%) reported results. In contrast, our survey identified 36 studies (39%) reporting primary analysis results and an additional 18 (19%) reporting results for secondary analyses (without results for their primary analysis). The overall budget for studies that did not report any results was estimated to be €5,051,253 for a total of 6,735 trial participants. The most frequent reasons for the absence of results reported by PIs were lack of time for 18 (42%), and logistic difficulties (e.g. delay in obtaining results or another blocking factor) for 12 (28%). An association was found between non-publication and negative results (adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.70, 95% Confidence Interval [1.67;14.11]).Conclusions: Even allowing for the fact that automatic searches underestimate the number of studies with published results, the level of reporting was disappointingly low. This amounts to a waste of trial participants' implication and money. Corrective actions are needed. Trial registration: https://osf.io/q5hc

A survey on French hospital physicians' certification to the Good Clinical Practices

National audienceGood clinical practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analyses and reporting of clinical trials. Before the start of a clinical trial, investigators commit to perform the research in accordance with GCPs, regulatory dispositions and protocol. The sponsors are responsible for investigators’ selection and for controlling their skills. Whereas industrial sponsors systematically require a certificate of GCP training, academic sponsors seem to be less demanding. We have carried out two surveys between April and June 2018. A first questionnaire was sent to the 40 French academic directions of clinical research and innovation in order to determine their requirements about the GCP training of the investigators participating in their trials. The second questionnaire was transmitted to physicians of the “Bretagne recherche clinique hospitalière network”: Rennes, Saint Malo, Saint Brieuc, Vannes, Lorient and Pontivy hospitals, in order to determine the GCP certification rate, and their needs in terms of clinical research training. Twenty-eight (70%) directions of clinical research answered the first survey, among which 18 (64%) required systematically the investigators’ GCP certification in case of category 1 interventional studies. This rate decreased for category 2 (50%) and non-interventional category 3 (18%) studies. A total of 345 physicians answered the second survey, among which 263 (76%) had already been clinical trial investigators. However, only 29% of allphysicians and 54% of those who had been principal investigator were certified for GCP training. These results support the need for large campaigns of GCP training in public hospitals