W C Lakey1, K Barnard, B C Batch, K Chiswell, A Tasneem, J B Green. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3850, 2400 Pratt Street, Room 7039, North Pavilion, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical trials assessing interventions for treating and preventing diabetes mellitus and its complications are needed to inform evidence-based practice. To examine whether current studies adequately address these needs, we conducted a descriptive analysis of diabetes-related trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2010. METHODS: From a dataset including 96,346 studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov downloaded on 27 September, 2010, a subset of 2,484 interventional trials was created by selecting trials with disease condition terms relevant to diabetes. RESULTS: Of the diabetes-related trials, 74.8% had a primarily therapeutic purpose while 10% were preventive. Listed interventions included drugs (63.1%) and behavioural (11.7%). Most trials were designed to enrol ≤ 500 (91.1%) or ≤ 100 (58.6%) participants, with mean/median times to completion of 1.8/1.4 years. Small percentages of trials targeted persons aged ≤ 18 years (3.7%) or ≥ 65 years (0.6%), while 30.8% excluded patients >65 years and the majority excluded those >75 years. Funding sources included industry (50.9%), NIH (7.5%) or other, with most being single-centre trials of other sponsorship (37.7%) or industry-funded multicentre studies (27.4%). A small number of trials (1.4%) listed primary outcomes including mortality or clinically significant cardiovascular complications. The distribution of trials by global region and US state does not correlate with prevalence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The majority of diabetes-related trials include small numbers of participants, exclude those at the extremes of age, are of short duration, involve drug therapy rather than preventive or non-drug interventions and do not focus upon significant cardiovascular outcomes. Recently registered diabetes trials may not sufficiently address important diabetes care issues or involve affected populations.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical trials assessing interventions for treating and preventing diabetes mellitus and its complications are needed to inform evidence-based practice. To examine whether current studies adequately address these needs, we conducted a descriptive analysis of diabetes-related trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2010. METHODS: From a dataset including 96,346 studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov downloaded on 27 September, 2010, a subset of 2,484 interventional trials was created by selecting trials with disease condition terms relevant to diabetes. RESULTS: Of the diabetes-related trials, 74.8% had a primarily therapeutic purpose while 10% were preventive. Listed interventions included drugs (63.1%) and behavioural (11.7%). Most trials were designed to enrol ≤ 500 (91.1%) or ≤ 100 (58.6%) participants, with mean/median times to completion of 1.8/1.4 years. Small percentages of trials targeted persons aged ≤ 18 years (3.7%) or ≥ 65 years (0.6%), while 30.8% excluded patients >65 years and the majority excluded those >75 years. Funding sources included industry (50.9%), NIH (7.5%) or other, with most being single-centre trials of other sponsorship (37.7%) or industry-funded multicentre studies (27.4%). A small number of trials (1.4%) listed primary outcomes including mortality or clinically significant cardiovascular complications. The distribution of trials by global region and US state does not correlate with prevalence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The majority of diabetes-related trials include small numbers of participants, exclude those at the extremes of age, are of short duration, involve drug therapy rather than preventive or non-drug interventions and do not focus upon significant cardiovascular outcomes. Recently registered diabetes trials may not sufficiently address important diabetes care issues or involve affected populations.
Authors: Catherine D DeAngelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert J Smith; David M Nathan; Silva A Arslanian; Leif Groop; Robert A Rizza; Jerome I Rotter Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrew J Karter; Assiamira Ferrara; Jennifer Y Liu; Howard H Moffet; Lynn M Ackerson; Joe V Selby Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kwok Leung Ong; Bernard M Y Cheung; Louisa Y F Wong; Nelson M S Wat; Kathryn C B Tan; Karen S L Lam Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: William Duckworth; Carlos Abraira; Thomas Moritz; Domenic Reda; Nicholas Emanuele; Peter D Reaven; Franklin J Zieve; Jennifer Marks; Stephen N Davis; Rodney Hayward; Stuart R Warren; Steven Goldman; Madeline McCarren; Mary Ellen Vitek; William G Henderson; Grant D Huang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hertzel C Gerstein; Michael E Miller; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; J Thomas Bigger; John B Buse; William C Cushman; Saul Genuth; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Denise G Simons-Morton; William T Friedewald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simona Cammarota; Lucio Marcello Falconio; Dario Bruzzese; Alberico Luigi Catapano; Manuela Casula; Anna Citarella; Luigi De Luca; Maria Elena Flacco; Lamberto Manzoli; Maria Masulli; Enrica Menditto; Andrea Mezzetti; Salvatore Riegler; Ettore Novellino; Gabriele Riccardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240