Lisa M Schwartz1, Steven Woloshin1, Eugene Zheng1, Tony Tse1, Deborah A Zarin1. 1. From The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Hitchcock, and Informulary, Lebanon, New Hampshire, and the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear. PURPOSE: To validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews). STUDY SELECTION: 100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015). DATA EXTRACTION: 2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS: Most trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant. LIMITATION: Unknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results. CONCLUSION: Primary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Library of Medicine.
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear. PURPOSE: To validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews). STUDY SELECTION: 100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015). DATA EXTRACTION: 2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS: Most trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant. LIMITATION: Unknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results. CONCLUSION: Primary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Library of Medicine.
Authors: Daniel M Hartung; Deborah A Zarin; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Marian McDonagh; Robin Paynter; Mark Helfand Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: F E Silverstein; G Faich; J L Goldstein; L S Simon; T Pincus; A Whelton; R Makuch; G Eisen; N M Agrawal; W F Stenson; A M Burr; W W Zhao; J D Kent; J B Lefkowith; K M Verburg; G S Geis Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Erick H Turner; Annette M Matthews; Eftihia Linardatos; Robert A Tell; Robert Rosenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Krista Y Chen; Erin M Borglund; Emma Charlotte Postema; Adam G Dunn; Florence T Bourgeois Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 2.599
Authors: Agnes Dechartres; Elizabeth G Bond; Jordan Scheer; Carolina Riveros; Ignacio Atal; Philippe Ravaud Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Joseph Abi Jaoude; Ramez Kouzy; Bruce D Minsky; Clifton David Fuller; Ying Yuan; Kim-Anh Do; Cullen M Taniguchi; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joseph Abi Jaoude; Ramez Kouzy; Ethan B Ludmir; Cullen M Taniguchi; Marc Ghabach; Roshal Patel; Dario Pasalic; Elie Ghossain; Austin B Miller; Timothy A Lin; Vivek Verma; C David Fuller; Vivek Subbiah; Bruce D Minsky Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.430