Reporting of clinical trials: a review of research funders' guidelines

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias. METHODS: National and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. RESULTS: Seventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results

Provenance evidence for Roman lead artefacts of distinct chronology from Portuguese archaeological sites

A set of 24 glandes plumbeae found at Alto dos Cacos, a Roman Republican military camp located in the Tagus valley, Portugal, was analysed by a quadrupole based ICP-MS to determine the tin (Sn) content and lead (Pb) isotope ratios. Results were compared with similar data previously obtained for fistulae plumbeae aquariae from Conimbriga, an important Lusitanian Roman centre during the Empire. Low Sn contents (≤0.01 wt%) were observed in 25% of glandes plumbeae indicating that were probably made with non-recycled lead. A similar situation was perceived for the set of fistulae aquariae, although most of the remaining fistulae present systematically higher Sn concentrations than those of glandes suggesting that lead recycling increased during the Empire. Pb isotope ratios distribution differentiated the analysed samples into two distinct groups: one composed by most of glandes plumbeae (15) and the other by the remaining glandes plumbeae (9) and all fistulae aquariae. The comparison with Pb isotope ratios of the published data for several lead ore deposits, exploited by the Roman in Iberian Peninsula, suggests that lead used in the manufacture of most of the glandes plumbeae would come from Linares-La Carolina, Alcudia Valley and Ossa Morena Zone. Also, some glandes could have been made using these ores, probably mixed with lead ores from Gallia Narbonensis (Southern France) or from Sardinia in the Mediterranean region. On the other hand, lead used in most fistulae aquariae came from Iberian mines, namely from Sierra Morena (Alcudia Valley and Linares-La Carolina mines) and Ossa Morena mining district, although in some cases, probably mixed with lead from the Iberian Pyrite Belt.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Identification and characterization by LC-UV-MS/MS of melanotan II skin-tanning products sold illegally on the Internet

New methods were developed and validated to determine the identity, contents, and purity of samples of melanotan II, asynthetic melanocortin receptor agonist, sold in vials as injectable skin-tanning products that were purchased from three online shops. Methods were based on liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (LC-UV) at wavelength 218 nm, and tandem mass spectrometric detection (MS/MS) after collision-induced fragmentation of the double charged [M+2H]²⁺precursor ion (m/z ²⁺513). Identification of melanotan II was verified by correct chromatographic retention time, and relative abundance ratios of five qualifying fragment ions. LC-UV was used to quantify melanotan II as well as impurities. Method validation was performed with reference to guidelines for assessing active substances in authorized medicinal products to reach acceptable accuracy and precision. Vials from two shops contained unknown impurities ranging from 4.1 to 5.9%; impurities from one shop were below the quantification limit. The total amount of melanotan II in vials ranged between 4.32 and 8.84 mg, although each shop claimed that vials contained 10 mg melanotan II. A broad range of drugs used for enhancement purposes can be obtained from the illicit market. However, users of these drugs may be exposed to a range of potential harms, as shown in this study, given that these products are manufactured, distributed and supplied from an illicit market

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up? A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. Objective To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences. Design Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out. Setting and participants The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice. Results In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72–247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue. Limitations The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation. Conclusions The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154. Funding The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials : a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.</p> <p>The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?</p

The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias

Background: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results.Methods: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials.Results: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials ( 24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported.Conclusion: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made

Bridging consent: from toll bridges to lift bridges?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ability to share human biological samples, associated data and results across disease-specific and population-based human research biobanks is becoming increasingly important for research into disease development and translation. Although informed consent often does not anticipate such cross-domain sharing, it is important to examine its plausibility. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of bridging consent between disease-specific and population-based research. Comparative analyses of 1) current ethical and legal frameworks governing consent and 2) informed consent models found in disease-specific and population-based research were conducted.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Ethical and legal frameworks governing consent dissuade cross-domain data sharing. Paradoxically, analysis of consent models for disease-specific and population-based research reveals such a high degree of similarity that bridging consent could be possible if additional information regarding bridging was incorporated into consent forms. We submit that bridging of consent could be supported if current trends endorsing a new interpretation of consent are adopted. To illustrate this we sketch potential bridging consent scenarios.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>A bridging consent, respectful of the spirit of initial consent, is feasible and would require only small changes to the content of consents currently being used. Under a bridging consent approach, the initial data and samples collection can serve an identified research project as well as contribute to the creation of a resource for a range of other projects.</p

Insulin degludec is not associated with a delayed or diminished response to hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine in type 1 diabetes: a double-blind randomised crossover study

Aims/hypothesis: Insulin degludec (Des(B30)LysB29(γ-Glu Nε-hexadecandioyl) human insulin; IDeg) is a new basal insulin with an ultra-long flat action profile. The acute physiological responses to hypoglycaemia with IDeg and insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin; IGlar) were compared. Methods: Twenty-eight adult type 1 diabetic patients with normal hypoglycaemia awareness (age = 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c = 7.8 ± 0.6% [62.8 ± 7 mmol/mol]) were randomised to once-daily IDeg or IGlar for 5 days in a two-period crossover design. Participants and research staff were blinded to group assignment. Patients were assigned the lowest available randomisation number from a set of blinded randomisation codes provided by the trial sponsor. Hypoglycaemia was induced by administering three times the usual daily insulin dose at midnight on day 5. Plasma glucose (PG) was stabilised by glucose clamp (5.5 mmol/l) for 7–9 h post dosing. Next morning, PG was allowed to decrease stepwise from 5.5 to 3.5 mmol/l (maintained for 30 min) to 2.5 mmol/l (for 15 min). PG was then increased to 3.9 mmol/l (for 120 min), before being returned to baseline. Hypoglycaemic symptom score (HSS), hypoglycaemic awareness, cognitive function, counter-regulatory hormones and vital signs were assessed during each glucose plateau. The primary analysis was to compare IDeg vs IGlar with respect to HSS at nadir PG concentration (2.5 mmol/l). Results: The full analysis set for treatment comparisons comprised data from all 28 exposed patients. Rates of PG decline and PG at nadir were similar for IDeg and IGlar. No treatment differences in HSS (estimated difference: 0.17 [95% CI −1.71, 2.05]; p > 0.05), cognitive function or awareness were observed at any time. Growth hormone and cortisol responses during hypoglycaemia were greater with IDeg than IGlar (AUC treatment ratio [IDeg/IGlar]: 2.44 [1.30, 4.60], p < 0.01; and 1.23 [1.01, 1.50]; p < 0.05), and adrenaline (epinephrine) responses trended higher (1.40 [0.96, 2.04], p = 0.07). The rates of recovery from hypoglycaemia were similar. Conclusions/interpretation: IDeg and IGlar elicit comparable symptomatic and cognitive responses to induced hypoglycaemia. IDeg may elicit a moderately greater endocrine response, but times to PG recovery were similar for the two insulins