Krista Y Chen1, Erin M Borglund1, Emma Charlotte Postema2, Adam G Dunn1,2, Florence T Bourgeois1,3. 1. Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse events identified during clinical trials can be important early indicators of drug safety, but complete and timely data on safety results have historically been difficult to access. The aim was to compare the availability, completeness, and concordance of safety results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: We analyzed clinical trials used in the Food and Drug Administration safety assessment of new drugs approved between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. The key safety outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Availability of safety results was measured by the presence and timing of a record of trial-level results in ClinicalTrials.gov and a corresponding peer-reviewed publication. For the subset of trials with available results, completeness was defined as the reporting of safety results for all participants and compared between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. To assess concordance, we compared the numeric results for safety outcomes reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications to results in Food and Drug Administration trial reports. RESULTS: Among 156 trials studying 52 drugs, 91 (58.3%) trials reported safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov and 106 (67.9%) in peer-reviewed publications (risk difference = -9.6%, 95% confidence interval = -20.3 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was reported sooner in published articles compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (log-rank test, p = 0.01). There was no difference in time to reporting for serious adverse events (p = 0.05), adverse events (p = 0.09), or withdrawals due to adverse events (p = 0.20). Complete reporting of all-cause mortality was similar in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications (74.7% vs 78.3%, respectively; risk difference = -3.6%, 95% confidence interval = -15.5 to 8.3) and higher in ClinicalTrials.gov for serious adverse events (100% vs 79.2%; risk difference = 20.8%, 95% confidence interval = 13.0 to 28.5) and adverse events (100% vs 86.8%; risk difference = 13.2%, 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 19.7). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less often completely reported in ClinicalTrials.gov (62.6% vs 92.5%; risk difference = -29.8%, 95% confidence interval = -40.1 to -18.7). No difference was found in concordance of results between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications for all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Safety results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov at a similar rate as in peer-reviewed publications, with more complete reporting of certain safety outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov. Future efforts should consider adverse event reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov as an accessible data source for post-marketing surveillance and other evidence synthesis tasks.
BACKGROUND: Adverse events identified during clinical trials can be important early indicators of drug safety, but complete and timely data on safety results have historically been difficult to access. The aim was to compare the availability, completeness, and concordance of safety results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: We analyzed clinical trials used in the Food and Drug Administration safety assessment of new drugs approved between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. The key safety outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Availability of safety results was measured by the presence and timing of a record of trial-level results in ClinicalTrials.gov and a corresponding peer-reviewed publication. For the subset of trials with available results, completeness was defined as the reporting of safety results for all participants and compared between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. To assess concordance, we compared the numeric results for safety outcomes reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications to results in Food and Drug Administration trial reports. RESULTS: Among 156 trials studying 52 drugs, 91 (58.3%) trials reported safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov and 106 (67.9%) in peer-reviewed publications (risk difference = -9.6%, 95% confidence interval = -20.3 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was reported sooner in published articles compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (log-rank test, p = 0.01). There was no difference in time to reporting for serious adverse events (p = 0.05), adverse events (p = 0.09), or withdrawals due to adverse events (p = 0.20). Complete reporting of all-cause mortality was similar in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications (74.7% vs 78.3%, respectively; risk difference = -3.6%, 95% confidence interval = -15.5 to 8.3) and higher in ClinicalTrials.gov for serious adverse events (100% vs 79.2%; risk difference = 20.8%, 95% confidence interval = 13.0 to 28.5) and adverse events (100% vs 86.8%; risk difference = 13.2%, 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 19.7). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less often completely reported in ClinicalTrials.gov (62.6% vs 92.5%; risk difference = -29.8%, 95% confidence interval = -40.1 to -18.7). No difference was found in concordance of results between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications for all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Safety results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov at a similar rate as in peer-reviewed publications, with more complete reporting of certain safety outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov. Future efforts should consider adverse event reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov as an accessible data source for post-marketing surveillance and other evidence synthesis tasks.
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Stephen J W Evans; Peter C Gøtzsche; Robert T O'Neill; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth Schulz; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lamberto Manzoli; Maria Elena Flacco; Maddalena D'Addario; Lorenzo Capasso; Corrado De Vito; Carolina Marzuillo; Paolo Villari; John P A Ioannidis Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-05-16
Authors: Kerry Dwan; Douglas G Altman; Juan A Arnaiz; Jill Bloom; An-Wen Chan; Eugenia Cronin; Evelyne Decullier; Philippa J Easterbrook; Erik Von Elm; Carrol Gamble; Davina Ghersi; John P A Ioannidis; John Simes; Paula R Williamson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240