Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. Methods and Findings: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose). From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001). The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions,...

Background: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians’ confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. Methods: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study’s aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs’ confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. Results: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs’ confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs’ confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0167987

Symptom-based stratification of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome: multi-dimensional characterisation of international observational cohorts and reanalyses of randomised clinical trials

Background Heterogeneity is a major obstacle to developing effective treatments for patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. We aimed to develop a robust method for stratification, exploiting heterogeneity in patient-reported symptoms, and to relate these differences to pathobiology and therapeutic response. Methods We did hierarchical cluster analysis using five common symptoms associated with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression), followed by multinomial logistic regression to identify subgroups in the UK Primary Sjögren's Syndrome Registry (UKPSSR). We assessed clinical and biological differences between these subgroups, including transcriptional differences in peripheral blood. Patients from two independent validation cohorts in Norway and France were used to confirm patient stratification. Data from two phase 3 clinical trials were similarly stratified to assess the differences between subgroups in treatment response to hydroxychloroquine and rituximab. Findings In the UKPSSR cohort (n=608), we identified four subgroups: Low symptom burden (LSB), high symptom burden (HSB), dryness dominant with fatigue (DDF), and pain dominant with fatigue (PDF). Significant differences in peripheral blood lymphocyte counts, anti-SSA and anti-SSB antibody positivity, as well as serum IgG, κ-free light chain, β2-microglobulin, and CXCL13 concentrations were observed between these subgroups, along with differentially expressed transcriptomic modules in peripheral blood. Similar findings were observed in the independent validation cohorts (n=396). Reanalysis of trial data stratifying patients into these subgroups suggested a treatment effect with hydroxychloroquine in the HSB subgroup and with rituximab in the DDF subgroup compared with placebo. Interpretation Stratification on the basis of patient-reported symptoms of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome revealed distinct pathobiological endotypes with distinct responses to immunomodulatory treatments. Our data have important implications for clinical management, trial design, and therapeutic development. Similar stratification approaches might be useful for patients with other chronic immune-mediated diseases. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Sjogren's Syndrome Association, French Ministry of Health, Arthritis Research UK, Foundation for Research in Rheumatology

Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review.

International audienceBACKGROUND: Multiple-arm randomized trials can be more complex in their design, data analysis, and result reporting than two-arm trials. We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of analyses in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multiple arms. METHODS: The literature in the MEDLINE database was searched for reports of RCTs with multiple arms published in 2009 in the core clinical journals. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized extraction form. RESULTS: In total, 298 reports were identified. Descriptions of the baseline characteristics and outcomes per group were missing in 45 reports (15.1%) and 48 reports (16.1%), respectively. More than half of the articles (n = 171, 57.4%) reported that a planned global test comparison was used (that is, assessment of the global differences between all groups), but 67 (39.2%) of these 171 articles did not report details of the planned analysis. Of the 116 articles reporting a global comparison test, 12 (10.3%) did not report the analysis as planned. In all, 60% of publications (n = 180) described planned pairwise test comparisons (that is, assessment of the difference between two groups), but 20 of these 180 articles (11.1%) did not report the pairwise test comparisons. Of the 204 articles reporting pairwise test comparisons, the comparisons were not planned for 44 (21.6%) of them. Less than half the reports (n = 137; 46%) provided baseline and outcome data per arm and reported the analysis as planned. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight discrepancies between the planning and reporting of analyses in reports of multiple-arm trials

No association between the ITGA2 807 T allele and retinopathy in french patients with type 2 diabetes

International audienc

Variation in severe postpartum hemorrhage management: A national vignette-based study.

OBJECTIVES:To assess variations in management of severe postpartum hemorrhage: 1) between obstetricians in the same situation 2) by the same obstetrician in different situations. STUDY DESIGN:A link to a vignette-based survey was emailed to obstetricians of 215 maternity units; the questionnaire asked them to report how they would manage the PPH described in 2 previously validated case-vignettes of different scenarios of severe PPH. Vignette 1 described a typical immediate, severe PPH, and vignette 2 a less typical case of severe but gradual PPH. They were constructed in 3 successive steps and included multiple-choice questions proposing several types of clinical practice options at each step. Variations in PPH were assessed in a descriptive analysis; agreement about management and its timing between vignette 1 and vignette 2 was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS:Analysis of complete responses from 119 (43.4%) obstetricians from 53 (24.6%) maternity units showed delayed or inadequate management in both vignettes. While 82.3% and 83.2% of obstetricians (in vignettes 1 and 2, respectively) would administer oxytocin 15 minutes after PPH diagnosis, only 52.9% and 29.4% would alert other team members. Management by obstetricians of the two vignette situations was inconsistent in terms of choice of treatment and timing of almost all treatments. CONCLUSION:Case vignettes demonstrated inadequate management as well as variations in management between obstetricians and in different PPH situations. Protocols or procedures are necessary in all maternity units to reduce the variations in practices that may explain a part of the delay in management that leads to PPH-related maternal mortality and morbidity

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873International audienceBACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. METHODS: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873

Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review

Abstract Background There is an increasing number of meta-analyses including data from non-randomized studies for therapeutic evaluation. We aimed to systematically assess the methods used in meta-analyses including non-randomized studies evaluating therapeutic interventions. Methods For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for meta-analyses including at least one non-randomized study evaluating therapeutic interventions. Etiological assessments and meta-analyses with no comparison group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process and meta-analysis methods. Results One hundred eighty eight meta-analyses were selected: 119 included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and 69 only NRSI. Half of the meta-analyses (n = 92, 49 %) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. “Grey literature” was searched for 72 meta-analyses (38 %). An assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was reported in 135 meta-analyses (72 %) but this assessment considered the risk of confounding bias in only 33 meta-analyses (18 %). In 130 meta-analyses (69 %), the design of each NRSI was not clearly specified. In 131 (70 %), whether crude or adjusted estimates of treatment effect for NRSI were combined was unclear or not reported. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed in 182 meta-analyses (97 %) and further explored in 157 (84 %). Reporting bias was assessed in 127 (68 %). Conclusions Some key methodological components of the systematic review process—search for grey literature, description of the type of NRSI included, assessment of risk of confounding bias and reporting of whether crude or adjusted estimates were combined—are not adequately carried out or reported in meta-analyses including NRSI