Natalie Pica1, Florence Bourgeois2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Boston Combined Residency Program, Boston Children's Hospital and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Emergency Medicine and Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts florence.bourgeois@childrens.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation and nonpublication represent potential waste in research resources and lead to compromises in medical evidence. Pediatric trials may be particularly vulnerable to these outcomes given the challenges encountered in conducting trials in children. We aimed to determine the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in pediatric populations. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of pediatric RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2010. Data were collected from the registry and associated publications identified (final search on September 1, 2015). RESULTS: Of 559 trials, 104 (19%) were discontinued early, accounting for an estimated 8369 pediatric participants. Difficulty with patient accrual (37%) was the most commonly cited reason for discontinuation. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if they were funded by industry compared with academic institutions (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.77). Of the 455 completed trials, 136 (30%) were not published, representing 69 165 pediatric participants. Forty-two unpublished trials posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by industry were more than twice as likely to result in nonpublication at 24 and 36 months (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.35-3.64; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.6-6.08, respectively) and had a longer mean time to publication compared with trials sponsored by academia (33 vs 24 months, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of pediatric RCTs, discontinuation and nonpublication were common, with thousands of children exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative or published findings. Trial funding source was an important determinant of these outcomes, with both academic and industry sponsors contributing to inefficiencies.
BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation and nonpublication represent potential waste in research resources and lead to compromises in medical evidence. Pediatric trials may be particularly vulnerable to these outcomes given the challenges encountered in conducting trials in children. We aimed to determine the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in pediatric populations. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of pediatric RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2010. Data were collected from the registry and associated publications identified (final search on September 1, 2015). RESULTS: Of 559 trials, 104 (19%) were discontinued early, accounting for an estimated 8369 pediatric participants. Difficulty with patient accrual (37%) was the most commonly cited reason for discontinuation. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if they were funded by industry compared with academic institutions (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.77). Of the 455 completed trials, 136 (30%) were not published, representing 69 165 pediatric participants. Forty-two unpublished trials posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by industry were more than twice as likely to result in nonpublication at 24 and 36 months (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.35-3.64; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.6-6.08, respectively) and had a longer mean time to publication compared with trials sponsored by academia (33 vs 24 months, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of pediatric RCTs, discontinuation and nonpublication were common, with thousands of children exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative or published findings. Trial funding source was an important determinant of these outcomes, with both academic and industry sponsors contributing to inefficiencies.
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: Benjamin Kasenda; Erik von Elm; John You; Anette Blümle; Yuki Tomonaga; Ramon Saccilotto; Alain Amstutz; Theresa Bengough; Joerg J Meerpohl; Mihaela Stegert; Kari A O Tikkinen; Ignacio Neumann; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Markus Faulhaber; Sohail M Mulla; Dominik Mertz; Elie A Akl; Dirk Bassler; Jason W Busse; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Francois Lamontagne; Alain Nordmann; Viktoria Gloy; Heike Raatz; Lorenzo Moja; Rachel Rosenthal; Shanil Ebrahim; Stefan Schandelmaier; Sun Xin; Per O Vandvik; Bradley C Johnston; Martin A Walter; Bernard Burnand; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Lars G Hemkens; Heiner C Bucher; Gordon H Guyatt; Matthias Briel Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Monique L Anderson; Karen Chiswell; Eric D Peterson; Asba Tasneem; James Topping; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ruijun Chen; Nihar R Desai; Joseph S Ross; Weiwei Zhang; Katherine H Chau; Brian Wayda; Karthik Murugiah; Daniel Y Lu; Amit Mittal; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: Jeffrey R Strawn; Jeffrey A Mills; Gary J Cornwall; Sarah A Mossman; Sara T Varney; Brooks R Keeshin; Paul E Croarkin Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Thomas J Hwang; Liat Orenstein; Steven G DuBois; Katherine A Janeway; Florence T Bourgeois Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Holly L Peay; Barbara B Biesecker; Benjamin S Wilfond; Jill Jarecki; Kendall L Umstead; Diana M Escolar; Aad Tibben Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Kanecia O Zimmerman; P Brian Smith; Ann W McMahon; Jean Temeck; Debbie Avant; Dianne Murphy; Susan McCune Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 26.796