Patient preferences when searching for clinical trials and adherence of study records to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance in key registry data fields.

ClinicalTrials.gov was started with the intention to create a consumer-friendly database for patients and others in search of information on clinical trials. However, there is no research on whether the content of ClinicalTrials.gov aligns with patient preferences. The TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative convened patient advisory boards and conducted a global online survey (N = 1070) to determine patient preferences when searching for clinical trials for participation. Patient feedback and ClinicalTrials.gov guidance documents were used to construct instruments to assess patient focus and guidance adherence of the Brief Title (a short lay title of the clinical trial) and Brief Summary (a high-level summary of study features) data fields in a representative sample (N = 346) of ClinicalTrials.gov records of interventional trials. When searching for clinical trials, survey participants rated condition (66.4%), trial location (57.0%), trial dates (52.9%), age and gender (48.6%), and health measurements (i.e., what the study measures) (45.5%) as the most important items. When presented with a list of trials from an initial search, participants saw condition, brief summary, study drug name, and brief title as the most helpful items. In a Brief Title, they wanted condition, health measurements, participant age, and study drug name. For Brief Summaries, participants preferred additional information on treatment duration, condition, study goal, health measurements, and frequency of visits. The assessment of patient focus in a representative sample of current ClinicalTrials.gov records showed that patient focus was underdeveloped as study records achieved only 52% (brief titles) and 50% (brief summaries) of the best possible score. The analysis of adherence to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance showed better scores (brief titles 69%, brief summaries 66%). We identified key information elements for registry users when evaluating clinical trials for participation. We found that aspects of patient focus are not common in current ClinicalTrials.gov entries. To support more user-friendly study records, we developed a tool to assess the quality of the plain language fields in study records prior to submission

Linsitinib (OSI-906) versus placebo for patients with locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: A double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study

Abstract BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare, aggressive cancer for which few treatment options are available. Linsitinib (OSI-906) is a potent, oral small molecule inhibitor of both IGF-1R and the insulin receptor, which has shown acceptable tolerability and preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity. We assessed linsitinib against placebo to investigate efficacy in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma were recruited at clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) twice-daily 150 mg oral linsitinib or placebo via a web-based, centralised randomisation system and stratified according to previous systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for adrenocortical carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and use of one or more oral antihyperglycaemic therapy at randomisation. Allocation was concealed by blinded block size and permuted block randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, calculated from date of randomisation until death from any cause. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00924989. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2009, and July 11, 2011, 139 patients were enrolled, of whom 90 were assigned to linsitinib and 49 to placebo. The trial was unblinded on March 19, 2012, based on data monitoring committee recommendation due to the failure of linsitinib to increase either progression-free survival or overall survival. At database lock and based on 92 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between linsitinib and placebo (median 323 days [95% CI 256-507] vs 356 days [249-556]; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·61-1·44]; p=0·77). The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the linsitinib group were fatigue (three [3%] patients vs no patients in the placebo group), nausea (two [2%] vs none), and hyperglycaemia (two [2%] vs none). No adverse events in the linsitinib group were deemed to be treatment related; one death (due to sepsis and megacolon) in the placebo group was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Linsitinib did not increase overall survival and so cannot be recommended as treatment for this general patient population. Further studies of IGF-1R and insulin receptor inhibitors, together with genetic profiling of responders, might pave the way toward individualised and improved therapeutic options in adrenocortical carcinoma