PubMed is not only includes international medical journals but also has a registration site for the ongoing clinical trials, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, under the supervision of US National Institutes of Health. We analyzed current status of vaccine clinical trials conducted by Korean investigators in database of ClinicalTrial.gov.
Materials and Methods
As of October 2012, there are total of 72 trials found on registry of vaccine clinical trials conducted by Korean investigators in database of ClinicalTrial.gov. These trials were analyzed and classified by conditions of vaccine clinical trials, biologicals or drugs used in vaccine clinical trials, status of proceeding research, and list of sponsor and collaborators.
Total 72 trials of vaccine clinical trials conducted by Korean investigators are classified by groups of infection (64 trials), cancer (4 trials), and others (4 trials). Infections group shown are as follows: poliomyelitis, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (10), influenza (9), human papillomavirus infection (8), pneumococcal vaccine (6), herpes zoster (4), smallpox (4), hepatitis B (4), etc. One trial of each in lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer are shown in cancer group. One trial of each in Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, renal failure, and rheumatoid arthritis are shown in other group.
Vaccine clinical trials conducted by Korean investigators in ClinicalTrial.gov reflects the current status of Korean research on vaccine clinical trials at the international level and can indicate research progress. It is hoped that this aids the development of future vaccine clinical trials in Korea.
Vaccines; Clinical trial; Database; ClinicalTrials.gov; US National Institutes of Health
Objective To assess the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover.
Data sources Systematic searches on Medline, Embase, Amed, Cochrane Central, the National Research Register (UK), and ClincalTrials.gov (USA); hand searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies; contact with experts and manufacturers of commercial preparations. Language of publication was not restricted.
Study selection and data extraction All randomised controlled trials of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover were included. Trials were considered if they were placebo controlled or controlled against a comparator intervention. Titles and abstracts of identified articles were read and hard copies were obtained. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were done independently by two reviewers. The Jadad score was used to evaluate methodological quality.
Results Fifteen potentially relevant trials were identified. Seven publications failed to meet all inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled trials assessing eight different interventions were reviewed. The agents tested were propranolol, tropisetron, tolfenamic acid, fructose or glucose, and the dietary supplements Borago officinalis (borage), Cynara scolymus (artichoke), Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear), and a yeast based preparation. All studies were double blind. Significant intergroup differences for overall symptom scores and individual symptoms were reported only for tolfenamic acid, γ linolenic acid from B officinalis, and a yeast based preparation.
Conclusion No compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover. The most effective way to avoid the symptoms of alcohol induced hangover is to practise abstinence or moderation.
To provide a brief survey of the clinical development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pharmacotherapy.
The search process included PubMed, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease 2008 (ICAD), and pharmaceutical company and AD advocacy Web sites. Selected articles were primary manuscripts reporting clinical trial or preclinical study results in English in peer-reviewed journals.
The AD pipeline comprises a large number of drugs with differing targets and mechanisms of action. No novel agent, since the approval of memantine in 2002, has successfully completed a phase 3 trial however, encouraging phase 2 results were reported for several compounds at ICAD 2008, and the overall number and variety of novel agents in clinical development continues to expand.
Despite clearly disappointing results of recently completed phase 3 trials for several leading novel compounds, the breadth and depth of the clinical development pipeline at all phases of development provides ample justification to expect that new pharmacotherapeutic options will become available for the treatment of AD within the next 3 to 5 years. Nonetheless, it is not yet clear which agent or therapeutic strategy will be the next to be approved for clinical use. In the meantime, it is important to not underestimate the value of currently available treatments, and to ensure that every patient with AD is prescribed optimal pharmacotherapy as early in the course of the disease as possible.
In an effort to understand how results of human clinical trials are made public, we analyze a large set of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, the world’s largest clinical trial registry.
Materials and Methods
We considered two trial result artifacts: (1) existence of a trial result journal article that is formally linked to a registered trial or (2) the deposition of a trial’s basic summary results within the registry.
The study sample consisted of 8907 completed, interventional, phase 2-or-higher clinical trials that were completed in 2006-2009. The majority of trials (72.2%) had no structured trial-article link present. Atotal of 2367 trials (26.6%) deposited basic summary results within the registry. Ofthose, 969 trials (10.9%) were classified as trials with extended results and 1398 trials (15.7%) were classified as trials with only required basic results. The majority of the trials (54.8%) had no evidence of results, based on either linked result articles or basic summary results (silent trials), while a minimal number (9.2%) report results through both registry deposition and publication.
Our study analyzes the body of linked knowledge around clinical trials (which we refer to as the “trialome”). Our results show that most trials do not report results and, for those that do, there is minimal overlap in the types of reporting. We identify several mechanisms by which the linkages between trials and their published results can be increased.
Our study shows that even when combining publications and registry results, and despite availability of several information channels, trial sponsors do not sufficiently meet the mandate to inform the public either via a linked result publication or basic results submission.
Objective: Phase 1 clinical trials are the first stage of clinical development of an investigational agent. Because the trials often take place at several geographically dispersed sites, safety teleconferences are held to update investigators and the drug sponsor on safety information and other pertinent business related to the trial conduct. Here we examine associations between the frequency of teleconferences and other clinical trial factors on trial conduct efficiency.
Methods: We examined Phase 1 clinical trials for patients with solid tumors opened for enrollment at a single, non-profit cancer center in Arizona (Center) that had completed at least three dose levels. The following information was included: safety teleconference frequency, whether or not the sponsor or contract research organization sent follow-up requests for updates on patient accrual, and safety outside of scheduled safety teleconferences. The dose escalation scheme, route of study drug administration and formulation type (e.g. oral targeted therapy or monoclonal antibody) was also included.
Results: Forty-nine Phase 1 studies were examined for inclusion. The majority of safety teleconferences were regularly scheduled (81.6%) with most taking place bi-weekly (46.9%). Additional solicitation for updates outside of scheduled safety teleconferences were requested during the conduct of 31 (63.3%) studies. None of the factors analyzed were significantly associated with accrual, subject dosing, and dose escalation.
Conclusion: We found that the frequency of teleconferences does not appear to expedite phase 1 study accrual, subject dosing, or dose escalation in the first 3 cohorts of a phase 1 clinical trial.
Phase 1 clinical trials; teleconferences
In September 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued a Statement requiring that all clinical trials be registered at inception in a public register in order to be considered for publication. The World Health Organization (WHO) and ICMJE have identified 20 items that should be provided before a trial is considered registered, including contact information. Identifying those scientifically responsible for trial conduct increases accountability. The objective is to examine the proportion of registered clinical trials providing valid scientific leadership information.
We reviewed clinical trial entries listing Canadian investigators in the two largest international and public trial registers, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The main outcome measures were the proportion of clinical trials reporting valid contact information for the trials' Principal Investigator (PI)/Co-ordinating Investigator/Study Chair/Site PI, and trial e-mail contact address, stratified by funding source, recruiting status, and register. A total of 1388 entries (142 from ISRCTN and 1246 from ClinicalTrials.gov) comprised our sample. We found non-compliance with mandatory registration requirements regarding scientific leadership and trial contact information. Non-industry and partial industry funded trials were significantly more likely to identify the individual responsible for scientific leadership (OR = 259, 95% CI: 95–701) and to provide a contact e-mail address (OR = 9.6, 95% CI: 6.6–14) than were solely industry funded trials.
Despite the requirements set by WHO and ICMJE, data on scientific leadership and contact e-mail addresses are frequently omitted from clinical trials registered in the two leading public clinical trial registers. To promote accountability and transparency in clinical trials research, public clinical trials registers should ensure adequate monitoring of trial registration to ensure completion of mandatory contact information fields identifying scientific leadership
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based clinical trial processes for improvements in patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process to launch, conduct, and publish clinical trials more rapidly. Institutional participation in clinical trials can be made more efficient and include the expansion of relationships with international partners. This paper reviews the current processes that are in use in radiation therapy trials and the importance of maintaining effective credentialing strategies to assure the quality of the outcomes of clinical trials. The paper offers strategies to streamline and harmonize credentialing tools and processes moving forward as the NCI undergoes transformative change in the conduct of clinical trials.
credentialing; clinical trials; radiation oncology; quality assurance; clinical cooperative groups
Clinical investigations are important for obtaining evidence to improve medical treatment. Large-scale clinical trials with thousands of participants are particularly important for this purpose in cardiovascular diseases. Conducting large-scale clinical trials entails high research costs. This study sought to investigate global trends in large-scale clinical trials in cardiovascular diseases.
We searched for trials using clinicaltrials.gov (URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/) using the key words 'cardio' and 'event' in all fields on 10 April, 2010. We then selected trials with 300 or more participants examining cardiovascular diseases. The search revealed 344 trials that met our criteria. Of 344 trials, 71% were randomized controlled trials, 15% involved more than 10,000 participants, and 59% were funded by industry. In RCTs whose results were disclosed, 55% of industry-funded trials and 25% of non-industry funded trials reported statistically significant superiority over control (p = 0.012, 2-sided Fisher's exact test).
Our findings highlighted concerns regarding potential bias related to funding sources, and that researchers should be aware of the importance of trial information disclosures and conflicts of interest. We should keep considering management and training regarding information disclosures and conflicts of interest for researchers. This could lead to better clinical evidence and further improvements in the development of medical treatment worldwide.
It is often stated that only a small proportion of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. This is said to be a bad thing, with calls for more trials to include more patients. Here I argue that whether or not greater accrual to clinical trials would be a good thing depends on the trials we conduct. The vast majority of clinical trials in cancer are currently early phase trials, and most do not lead to further studies even if they have encouraging results. The key metric is thus not the number of patients on clinical trials, but the number on the sort of large, randomized, Phase III trials that can be used as a basis for clinical decisions. I also address two important barriers to greater clinical trial participation. The first barrier is financial: clinical research has long been the poor cousin of basic research, with perhaps no more than a nickel in the cancer research dollar going to clinical research. The second barrier is regulatory: clinical research has become so overburdened by regulation that it takes years to initiate a trial, and dedicated staff just to deal with the paperwork once the trial starts. This not only adds significantly to the costs of clinical research, but scares many young investigators away. It has been estimated that nearly half of all US-sponsored trials are being conducted abroad, and it is plausible that excessive regulation is at least partly responsible. That statistic should serve as a wake-up call to the US clinical research community to implement the recommendations of the now decade-old report of National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Program Review Group, which largely center around simplifying trials and streamlining trial procedures.
Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) are challenging. Previous trials of complex interventions were conducted in high-income countries, reported long lead times for site setup and low screened-to-recruitment rates.
In this report we evaluate the internal pilot phase of an international, multicentre TBI trial of a complex intervention to assess: design and implementation of an online case report form; feasibility of recruitment (sites and patients); feasibility and effectiveness of delivery of the protocol.
All aspects of the pilot phase of the trial were conducted as for the main trial. The pilot phase had oversight by independent Steering and Data Monitoring committees.
Forty sites across 12 countries gained ethical approval. Thirty seven of 40 sites were initiated for recruitment. Of these, 29 had screened patients and 21 randomized at least one patient. Lead times to ethics approval (6.8 weeks), hospital approval (18 weeks), interest to set up (61 weeks), set up to screening (11 weeks), and set up to randomization (31.6 weeks) are comparable with other international trials. Sixteen per cent of screened patients were eligible. We found 88% compliance rate with trial protocol.
The pilot data demonstrated good feasibility for this large international multicentre randomized controlled trial of hypothermia to control intracranial pressure. The sample size was reduced to 600 patients because of homogeneity of the patient group and we showed an optimized cooling intervention could be delivered.
Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN34555414.
Traumatic brain injury; Therapeutic hypothermia; Randomized controlled trial; Feasibility
Variability in placebo response greatly complicates the design, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials of antidepressant medications. To identify factors that impact detection of antidepressant–placebo differences, we conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant phase II–IV clinical trials for major depressive disorder conducted by the manufacturer of venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine completed by March 2011. We examined 15 factors potentially relevant to trial outcomes, using the standardized mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) score as the primary outcome. Thirty trials comprising 8933 patients were included. In univariate analyses, antidepressant efficacy (ie, drug vs placebo difference) was predicted most strongly (β=3.74, p=0.0002) by the proportion of patients in the trial enrolled from academic sites. Other factors predicting larger drug–placebo differences included lower participant completion rate, fewer post-baseline study visits, earlier year of study, and study drug (venlafaxine>desvenlafaxine). In multivariate meta-regression modeling, only the proportion of patients from academic sites maintained statistical significance as a predictor of drug–placebo separation for both HAM-D17 continuous score change (β=2.24, p=0.034) and response rate (β=2.26, p=0.035). Including a higher proportion of academic sites may increase the ability to detect differences between active drug and placebo in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.
Academic Medical Centers; Antidepressive Agents; Clinical Pharmacology/Clinical Trials; Depression; Unipolar/Bipolar; Drug Discovery/Development; Ethics; Mood/Anxiety/Stress Disorders; Placebo; Signal Detection; Venlafaxine; placebo; academic medical centers; signal detection; antidepressants; venlafaxine; desvenlafaxine
Importance of the field
Alzheimer’s disease is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly, and there is no disease-modifying therapy yet available. Immunotherapy directed against the β-amyloid peptide may be capable of slowing the rate of disease progression. Bapineuzumab, an anti–β-amyloid monoclonal antibody, will be the first such agent to emerge from Phase III clinical trials.
Areas covered in this review
The primary literature on bapineuzumab from 2009–2010 is reviewed in its entirety, along with the literature on AN1792, a first-generation anti–β-amyloid vaccine, from 2003–2009. Other Alzheimer’s disease immunotherapeutics currently in development, according to www.clinicaltrials.gov, are also discussed.
What the reader will gain
In addition to a critical appraisal of the Phase II trial results for bapineuzumab, this review considers the broader field of immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease as a whole, including the challenges ahead.
Take home message
Bapineuzumab appears capable of reducing the cerebral β-amyloid peptide burden in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. However, particularly in APOE ε4 carriers, its ability to slow disease progression remains uncertain, and vasogenic edema — a dose-limiting and potentially severe adverse reaction — may limit its clinical applicability.
Alzheimer’s disease; β-amyloid peptide (amyloid-β Aβ); Bapineuzumab; Immunotherapy (immunization); Monoclonal antibody; Vasogenic edema
The sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) study (Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT00738170) is an academic initiated and conducted, multinational, open, blinded endpoint, randomised controlled trial designed to determine whether treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) can reduce the incidence of serious cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease. The answer to this question is of major importance to populations undergoing ageing and lifestyle changes all over the world. The SAVE study brings together respiratory, sleep and cardiovascular clinician-scientists in a unique interdisciplinary collaborative effort with industry sponsors to conduct the largest and most ambitious clinical trial yet conducted in the field of sleep apnea, with a global recruitment target of 5000 patients. Following its launch in Australia and China in late 2008, SAVE has now entered a phase of international expansion with new recruitment networks being established in New Zealand, India and Latin America. This article describes the rationale for the SAVE study, the considerations behind its design, and progress thus far in establishing the recruitment network. The report emphasises the important role that Chinese sleep and cardiovascular investigators have played in the start-up phase of this landmark international project.
obstructive sleep apnea; continuous positive airways pressure; sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) study
Eighteen-month-long randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are common for phase II and phase III drug development for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Yet, no 18-month trial has shown statistically significant outcomes favoring the test drug. We examined characteristics and underlying assumptions of these trials by assessing the placebo groups.
We searched the clinicaltrials.gov registry for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials for AD of at least 18-month duration and extracted demographic, clinical, and trials characteristics, and change in main outcomes from the placebo groups. We obtained additional information from presentations, abstracts, publications, and sponsors.
Of 23 trials identified, 11 were completed and had baseline data available; nine had follow-up data available; 17 were phase III. General inclusion criteria were very similar except that minimum Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores varied from 12 to 20. Sample sizes ranged from 402 to 1,684 for phase III trials and 80 to 400 for phase II. Cholinesterase inhibitor use was from 53% to 100%, and memantine use was from 13.5% to 78%. The AD Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) was the co-primary outcome in all trials; and activities of daily living, global severity, or global change ratings were the other co-primaries. APOE ε4 genotype carriers ranged from 58% to 67%; mean baseline ADAS-cog was 17.8 to 24.2. ADAS-cog worsening in the placebo groups during 18 months ranged from 4.34 to 9.10, with standard deviations from 8.17 to 9.39, increasing during 18 months.
Inclusion criteria are essentially similar to earlier 6-month and 12-month trials in which cholinesterase inhibitors were not allowed, as were mean ADAS-cog rates of change. Yet increasing variability and relatively little change overall in the ADAS-cog placebo groups, eg, about 25% of patients do not worsen by more than 1 point, might make it more unlikely than previously assumed that a modestly effective drug can be reliably recognized, especially when the drug might work only to attenuate decline in function and not to improve function. These observations would be strengthened by pooling individual trials data, and pharmaceutical sponsors should participate in such efforts.
Alzheimer's disease; Clinical trials; Clinical trials methods; Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS); Clinical Dementia Rating scale; Clinical global impression of change; Activities of daily living; Amyloid-beta protein; Cholinesterase inhibitors; Memantine
Malaria vaccines are considered amongst the most important modalities for potential elimination of malaria disease and transmission. Research and development in this field has been an area of intense effort by many groups over the last few decades. Despite this, there is currently no licensed malaria vaccine. Researchers, clinical trialists and vaccine developers have been working on many approached to make malaria vaccine available.
African research institutions have developed and demonstrated a great capacity to undertake clinical trials in accordance to the International Conference on Harmonization-Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) standards in the last decade; particularly in the field of malaria vaccines and anti-malarial drugs. This capacity is a result of networking among African scientists in collaboration with other partners; this has traversed both clinical trials and malaria control programmes as part of the Global Malaria Action Plan (GMAP). GMAP outlined and support global strategies toward the elimination and eradication of malaria in many areas, translating in reduction in public health burden, especially for African children. In the sub-Saharan region the capacity to undertake more clinical trials remains small in comparison to the actual need.
However, sustainability of the already developed capacity is essential and crucial for the evaluation of different interventions and diagnostic tools/strategies for other diseases like TB, HIV, neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases. There is urgent need for innovative mechanisms for the sustainability and expansion of the capacity in clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa as the catalyst for health improvement and maintained.
Malaria; Vaccines; Clinical trials; Experiences; Challenges; Africa
To evaluate the adequacy of reporting of protocols for randomised trials on diseases of the digestive system registered in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and the consistency between primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and sample size specified in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and published trials.
Randomised phase III trials on adult patients with gastrointestinal diseases registered before January 2009 in http://ClinicalTrials.gov were eligible for inclusion. From http://ClinicalTrials.gov all data elements in the database required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals were extracted. The subsequent publications for registered trials were identified. For published trials, data concerning publication date, primary and secondary endpoint, sample size, and whether the journal adhered to ICMJE principles were extracted. Differences between primary and secondary outcomes, sample size and sample size calculations data in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and in the published paper were registered.
105 trials were evaluated. 66 trials (63%) were published. 30% of trials were registered incorrectly after their completion date. Several data elements of the required ICMJE data list were not filled in, with missing data in 22% and 11%, respectively, of cases concerning the primary outcome measure and sample size. In 26% of the published papers, data on sample size calculations were missing and discrepancies between sample size reporting in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and published trials existed.
The quality of registration of randomised controlled trials still needs improvement.
Outcome reporting bias is a considerable problem.
A number of journals (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors journals) only publish clinical trials that are registered in relevant trial databases such as http://ClinicalTrials.gov before recruitment of participants. Older trials commenced after 1 July 2005 will be considered for publication only if they are adequately registered before journal submission.
Previous studies of published trials suggest that many are registered inadequately.
A number of trials are registered inadequately in http://ClinicalTrials.gov without information about basic methodological issues.
Several trials published in journals that require registration in online databases are registered after their date of completion.
Discrepancies between the registered information in trial registrations and the trial publications still exist (such as the planned sample size calculations).
Strength and limitations of this study
The study is small, only evaluating 105 trials. The real extent of inadequate trial registration may be under- or overestimated.
Only trials concerning gastrointestinal diseases were evaluated, which makes it difficult to generalise to other medical specialties.
In this review, several aspects surrounding the choice of a therapeutic intervention and the conduct of clinical trials are discussed. Some of the background for why human studies have evolved to their current state is also included. Specifically, the following questions have been addressed: 1) What criteria should be used to determine whether a scientific discovery or invention is worthy of translation to human application? 2) What recent scientific advance warrants a deeper understanding of clinical trials by everyone? 3) What are the different types and phases of a clinical trial? 4) What characteristics of a human disorder should be noted, tracked, or stratified for a clinical trial and what inclusion /exclusion criteria are important to enrolling appropriate trial subjects? 5) What are the different study designs that can be used in a clinical trial program? 6) What confounding factors can alter the accurate interpretation of clinical trial outcomes? 7) What are the success rates of clinical trials and what can we learn from previous clinical trials? 8) What are the essential principles for the conduct of valid clinical trials?
Human; research; protocol; guidelines; translation; neurology
The current strategy of drug development has been criticized as being highly inefficient. In 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released recommendations to improve this process, including a push for increased use of enrichment trials. It is unclear to what extent aspects of this “Critical Path Initiative” have been adopted in trial designs in metastatic colorectal cancer.
Patients and Methods
A systematic review was conducted of actively enrolling treatment trials in metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials were identified from the National Cancer Institute’s clinicaltrials.gov and Investigative Drug Branch databases. Trials were categorized based on the number of previous treatments allowed, phase of the trial, agent mechanism of action, and FDA-approval status of agents under investigation.
One hundred and two trials are enrolling with a combined enrollment goal of more than 20,000 patients. Twenty five percent of trials are investigating an agent not yet FDA-approved for any oncology indication, although for many of these trials, the stated therapeutic target duplicates an agent already FDA-approved for colorectal cancer. The most common study design is a phase II study limited to previously untreated patients; compared to the remaining trials, these phase II trials are over 10 times more likely to only use agents FDA-approved for colorectal cancer. Even in trials limited to previously treated patients, few refractory patients (27%) are enrolled on trials with a novel agent. Three percent of patients are enrolled in trials enriched for tumor characteristics that were hypothesized to improve clinical benefit.
Current clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer are deficient in the investigation of agents directed at a novel therapeutic target, overutilize phase II studies of FDA-approved agents, and fail to incorporate enrichment trial designs as encouraged by the FDA initiative.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complicated condition influenced by multiple confounding factors, making optimum patient management extremely challenging. Ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, comorbidities and tumour morphology affect outcomes and vary from region to region, and there is no common language to assess patient prognosis and make treatment recommendations. Despite recent efforts to reduce the incidence of HCC, most patients present with unresectable disease. Non-surgical treatments include ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation and the multikinase inhibitor, sorafenib, but their effects in all patient subgroups are not known and further information is needed to optimise the use of these treatments.
The Global Investigation of Therapeutic DEcisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Of its Treatment with SorafeNib (GIDEON) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00812175; http://clinicaltrials.gov/) is an ongoing global, prospective, non-interventional study of patients with unresectable HCC who are eligible for systemic therapy and for whom the decision has been taken to treat with sorafenib under real-life practice conditions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in different subgroups, especially Child-Pugh B where data are limited.
This study will recruit 3000 patients from > 40 countries and follow them for approximately 5 years to compile a large and robust database of information that will be used to analyse local, regional and global differences in baseline characteristics, disease aetiology, treatment practice patterns and treatment outcomes, with a view to improve the knowledge base used to guide physician treatment decisions and to improve patient outcomes.
Although global clinical trials for lung cancer can enable the development of new agents efficiently, whether the results of clinical trials performed in one population can be fully extrapolated to another population remains questionable. A comparison of phase III trials for the same drug combinations against lung cancer in different countries shows a great diversity in haematological toxicity. One possible reason for this diversity may be that different ethnic populations may have different physiological capacities for white blood cell production and maturation. In addition, polymorphisms in the promoter and coding regions of drug-metabolising enzymes (e.g., CYP3A4 and UGT1A1) or in transporters (e.g., ABCB1) may vary among different ethnic populations. For example, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are more effective in Asian patients than in patients of other ethnicities, a characteristic that parallels the incidence of EGFR-activating mutations. Interstitial lung disease associated with the administration of gefitinib is also more common among Japanese patients than among patients of other ethnicities. Although research into these differences has just begun, these studies suggest that possible pharmacogenomic and tumour genetic differences associated with individual responses to anticancer agents should be carefully considered when conducting global clinical trials.
lung cancer; ethnicity; epidermal growth factor receptor; pharmacogenomic
With the global expansion of clinical trials and the expectations of the rise of the emerging economies known as BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the understanding of factors that affect the willingness to participate in clinical trials of patients from those countries assumes a central role in the future of health research.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) of willingness to participate in clinical trials among Brazilian patients and then we compared it with Indian patients (with results of another SRMA previously conducted by our group) through a system dynamics model.
Five studies were included in the SRMA of Brazilian patients. Our main findings are 1) the major motivation for Brazilian patients to participate in clinical trials is altruism, 2) monetary reimbursement is the least important factor motivating Brazilian patients, 3) the major barrier for Brazilian patients to not participate in clinical trials is the fear of side effects, and 4) Brazilian patients are more likely willing to participate in clinical trials than Indians.
Our study provides important insights for investigators and sponsors for planning trials in Brazil (and India) in the future. Ignoring these results may lead to unnecessary fund/time spending. More studies are needed to validate our results and for better understanding of this poorly studied theme.
Botulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficacy and side-effects associated with each formulation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to systematically assess published studies and perform a meta-analysis to determine if there is a significant advantage of any of the individual formulations.
A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English language randomized controlled trials using Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included any randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the use of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes. The included articles were also analyzed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs.
The results of this review will provide clinicians with an unbiased, high level of evidence of the comparative efficacy of individual preparations of botulinum toxin A.
Botulinum toxin; Cosmetics; Skin wrinkling; Systematic review; Plastic surgery
Clinical trial registries are in widespread use to promote transparency around trials and their results.
To describe characteristics of drug trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov and examine whether the funding source of these trials is associated with favorable published outcomes.
An observational study of safety and efficacy trials for anticholesteremics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton-pump inhibitors, and vasodilators conducted between 2000 and 2006.
ClinicalTrials.gov, a Web-based registry of clinical trials launched in 1999.
Publications resulting from the trials for the 5 drug categories of interest were identified, and data were abstracted on the trial record and publication, including timing of registration, elements of the study design, funding source, publication date, and study outcomes. Assessments were based on the primary funding categories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.
Among 546 drug trials, 346 (63%) were primarily funded by industry, 74 (14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations. Trials funded by industry were more likely to be phase 3 or 4 trials (88.7%; P < 0.001 across groups), to use an active comparator in controlled trials (36.8%; P = 0.010 across groups), to be multicenter (89.0%; P < 0.001 across groups), and to enroll more participants (median sample size, 306 participants; P < 0.001 across groups). Overall, 362 (66.3%) trials had published results. Industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes in 85.4% of publications, compared with 50.0% for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization–funded trials (P < 0.001). Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributions were also more likely to report positive outcomes than those without industry funding (85.0% vs. 61.2%; P = 0.013). Rates of trial publication within 24 months of study completion ranged from 32.4% among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization–funded trials without industry contributions (P = 0.005 across groups).
The publication status of a trial could not always be confirmed, which could result in misclassification. Additional information on study protocols and comprehensive trial results were not available to further explore underlying factors for the association between funding source and outcome reporting.
In this sample of registered drug trials, those funded by industry were less likely to be published within 2 years of study completion and were more likely to report positive outcomes than were trials funded by other sources.
Primary Funding Source
National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
In Japan, standard first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer was initially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy. This is based on the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 9205 phase III trial. Based on recent Japanese phase III trials, S1 plus cisplatin combination chemotherapy was established as the standard first-line chemotherapy, and this combination has met the global standard regimen of 5-FU (capecitabine) plus a platinum analog (cisplatin or oxaliplatin). Since the same standard regimen has been established outside Japan, many global trials are currently ongoing in other countries aside from Japan. With the recent development of many molecular targeted agents, global collaboration in clinical trials is necessary for their immediate evaluation. We review the results of recent phase III trials of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer in Japan and other countries.
Understanding of the pathophysiological basis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is increasing rapidly and a variety of potential treatment modalities have emerged based on these improved mechanistic insights. The optimal way of proceeding with disease-modifying drug development remains to be clarified and controversies have emerged regarding the definition of Alzheimer’s disease, the participation of mild cognitive impairment patients in clinical trials, the definition of disease modification, the potential impediments to satisfaction from patients receiving disease-modifying therapy, the importance of add-on therapy with symptomatic agents, the optimal clinical trial design to demonstrate disease modification, the best means of minimizing time spent in Phase II of drug development, the potential role of adaptive designs in clinical trials, the use of enrichment designs in clinical trials, the role of biomarkers in clinical trials, the treatment of advanced patients with disease-modifying agents, and distinctions between disease modification and disease prevention. The questions surrounding these issues must be resolved as disease-modifying therapies for AD are advanced. These controversies are framed and potential directions towards resolution described.