Jula K Inrig1, Robert M Califf2, Asba Tasneem2, Radha K Vegunta3, Christopher Molina4, John W Stanifer2, Karen Chiswell2, Uptal D Patel5. 1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Quintiles Global Clinical Research Organization, Morrisville, NC. 2. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: uptal.patel@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Well-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Interventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty. PREDICTOR: Nephrology versus cardiology versus other trials. OUTCOMES: Select clinical trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling≤100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology). LIMITATIONS: Does not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support. CONCLUSIONS: Critical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.
BACKGROUND: Well-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Interventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty. PREDICTOR: Nephrology versus cardiology versus other trials. OUTCOMES: Select clinical trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling≤100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology). LIMITATIONS: Does not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support. CONCLUSIONS: Critical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.
Authors: John R Sedor; Suzanne Watnick; Uptal D Patel; Alfred Cheung; William Harmon; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Thomas H Hostetter; Jula K Inrig; Rajnish Mehrotra; Emily Robinson; Paul C Smedberg; Rachel N Shaffer Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Victor J Dzau; Alex Cho; William Ellaissi; Ziggy Yoediono; Devdutta Sangvai; Bimal Shah; David Zaas; Krishna Udayakumar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kunihiro Matsushita; Marije van der Velde; Brad C Astor; Mark Woodward; Andrew S Levey; Paul E de Jong; Josef Coresh; Ron T Gansevoort Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Lesley A Stevens; Jane Manzi; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Andrew S Levey Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sankar D Navaneethan; Stacey E Jolly; Jesse D Schold; Susana Arrigain; Georges Nakhoul; Victoria Konig; Jennifer Hyland; Yvette K Burrucker; Priscilla Davis Dann; Barbara H Tucky; John Sharp; Joseph V Nally Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Geovani Faddoul; Girish N Nadkarni; Nancy D Bridges; Jens Goebel; Donald E Hricik; Richard Formica; Madhav C Menon; Yvonne Morrison; Barbara Murphy; Kenneth Newell; Peter Nickerson; Emilio D Poggio; David Rush; Peter S Heeger Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jenna M Norton; Christian J Ketchum; Andrew S Narva; Robert A Star; Griffin P Rodgers Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Laura M Dember; Patrick Archdeacon; Mahesh Krishnan; Eduardo Lacson; Shari M Ling; Prabir Roy-Chaudhury; Kimberly A Smith; Michael F Flessner Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Yiming Zhou; Philip Castonguay; Eriene-Heidi Sidhom; Abbe R Clark; Moran Dvela-Levitt; Sookyung Kim; Jonas Sieber; Nicolas Wieder; Ji Yong Jung; Svetlana Andreeva; Jana Reichardt; Frank Dubois; Sigrid C Hoffmann; John M Basgen; Mónica S Montesinos; Astrid Weins; Ashley C Johnson; Eric S Lander; Michael R Garrett; Corey R Hopkins; Anna Greka Journal: Science Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 47.728