Completeness of Reporting of Patient-Relevant Clinical Trial Outcomes: Comparison of Unpublished Clinical Study Reports with Publicly Available Data

English version České info

Background:
Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments.

Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs.

Methods and Findings:
We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as “completely reported” or “incompletely reported.” For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall.

We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes.

The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs.

Conclusions:
In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Completeness of Reporting of Patient-Relevant Clinical Trial Outcomes: Comparison of Unpublished Clinical Study Reports with Publicly Available Data. PLoS Med 10(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001526
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001526

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. SongF, ParekhS, HooperL, LokeYK, RyderJ, et al. (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 14: 1–220.

2. McGauranN, WieselerB, KreisJ, SchulerYB, KolschH, et al. (2010) Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 11: 37.

3. De AngelisC, DrazenJM, FrizelleFA, HaugC, HoeyJ, et al. (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351: 1250–1251.

4. (2007) Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. US Public Law 110-85 section 801. Washington (District of Columbia): Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ085.110.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.

5. PrayleAP, HurleyMN, SmythAR (2012) Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ 344: d7373.

6. KunathF, GrobeHR, KeckB, RuckerG, WullichB, et al. (2011) Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials. BMJ Open 1: e000430.

7. MathieuS, BoutronI, MoherD, AltmanDG, RavaudP (2009) Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302: 977–984.

8. HuicM, MarusicM, MarusicA (2011) Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. PLoS ONE 6: e25258 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025258

9. TurnerEH (2008) Closing a loophole in the FDA Amendments Act. Science 322: 44–46.

10. SchulzKF, AltmanDG, MoherD Group C (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152: 726–732.

11. International Conference on Harmonisation (1996) Guideline for industry: structure and content of clinical study reports. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm129456.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.

12. DoshiP, JeffersonT, Del MarC (2012) The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med 9: e1001201 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001201

13. EydingD, LelgemannM, GrouvenU, HarterM, KrompM, et al. (2010) Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 341: c4737.

14. GotzschePC, JorgensenAW (2011) Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ 342: d2686.

15. DoshiP (2009) Neuraminidase inhibitors—the story behind the Cochrane review. BMJ 339: b5164.

16. WieselerB, McGauranN, KaiserT (2010) Finding studies on reboxetine: a tale of hide and seek. BMJ 341: c4942.

17. EichlerHG, AbadieE, BreckenridgeA, LeufkensH, RasiH (2012) Open clinical trial data for all? A view from regulators. PLoS Med 9: e1001202 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001202

18. European Medicines Agency (2012) Release of data from clinical trials. Available: http://www.emea.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000555.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580607bfa. Accessed 23 May 2013.

19. European Medicines Agency (2013 Apr 30) European Medicines Agency publishes final advice from clinical-trial advisory groups. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2013/04/news_detail_001778.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. Accessed 23 May 2013.

20. European Medicines Agency (2013) Draft policy 70: publication and access to clinical-trial data. Available: http://www.emea.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/includes/document/document_detail.jsp?webContentId=WC500144730&mid=WC0b01ac058009a3dc. Accessed 18 July 2013.

21. WatsonR (2012) European commission proposes new laws to halt decline in number of clinical trials. BMJ 345: e4901.

22. European Parliament (2013) ***I report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (COM(2012)0369 – C7-0194/2012 – 2012/0192(COD)). Available: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bREPORT%2bA7-2013-0208%2b0%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN. Accessed 18 July 2013.

23. WieselerB, KerekesMF, VervoelgyiV, McGauranN, KaiserT (2012) Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ 344: d8141.

24. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. New York: Wiley.

25. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (2011) EUnetHTA JA WP5: relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. Available: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Final%20version%20of%20Background%20Review%20on%20Relative%20Effectiveness%20Assessmentappendix.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.

26. SoxHC, HelfandM, GrimshawJ, DickersinK, editors. the PLoS Medicine, et al. (2010) Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals. PLoS Med 7: e1000269 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000269

27. DoshiP, JeffersonT (2013) Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports. BMJ Open 3: e002496.

28. VedulaSS, BeroL, SchererRW, DickersinK (2009) Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 361: 1963–1971.

29. VedulaSS, LiT, DickersinK (2013) Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med 10: e1001378 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001378

30. SoxHC (2010) Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report. Ann Intern Med 153: 469–472.

31. BarbourV, ClarkJ, ConnellL, RossA, SimpsonP, et al. (2013) Getting more generous with the truth: clinical trial reporting in 2013 and beyond. PLoS Med 10: e1001379 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001379

32. JackA (2013 Mar 10) Pharma group sues European regulator over data. Financial Times

33. European Medicines Agency (2013 Apr 30) European Medicines Agency receives interim decisions of the General Court of the EU on access to clinical and non-clinical information. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2013/04/news_detail_001779.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. Accessed 23 May 2013.