Leading academic research centers are doing a poor and
variable job of disseminating clinical trial results, according to a
cross-sectional analysis published online February 17 in BMJ, and that is
leading to serious information gaps and ethical lapses.
Despite there being moral and sometimes legal obligations to
circulate results in the public domain, Ruijun Chen, MD, from the Department of
Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues found that
just 29% of completed trials at 51 major research centers had been published 2
years after completion, and a mere 13% had submitted their results to
ClinicalTrials.gov.
"There is no excuse for the fact that researchers are
using resources and conducting experiments on humans, taking up their time and
maybe exposing them to risk, and then failing to report the results. Why, is
beyond me," corresponding author Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a professor of
medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.
Delayed data dissemination denies healthcare providers and
researchers crucial information. "If all the trial data had been made
available in a timely way, then people would have realized the cardiovascular
risks of Vioxx [Merck] 2 years before it was taken off the market in
2004," said Dr Krumholz, who coauthored a study of pooled trial data
showing increased risk with the drug as early as 2000.
The researchers called for timely action to correct this
lapse in commitment to the investigative mission and failure to follow through
on the research process. "Additional tools and mechanisms are needed to
rectify this lack of timely reporting and publication, as they impair the
research enterprise and threaten to undermine evidence based clinical decision
making," the authors write...
Across institutions, the proportion of trials that
disseminated results within 24 months ranged from 16.2% (University of
Nebraska) to 55.3% (University of Minnesota), and the proportion published
within 24 months of completion extended from 10.8% (University of Nebraska) to
40.3% (Yale University). The overall range for results reported on
ClinicalTrials.gov ran from 4.1% (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) to
55.4% (MD Anderson Cancer Center).
The overall rate of dissemination ran from 45.9% at the
University of Nebraska to 76.7% at the universities of Minnesota and Rochester.
There was also a more than twofold variation from 13.9 (University of
California, Irvine) to 28.3 (Boston University) months in median time from
study completion to publication or reporting.
Previous studies found similar suboptimal dissemination
rates, with 25% to 50% of trials remaining unpublished several years after
completion.
Dr Krumholz is at loss to understand the lapse in data
sharing, which he considers immoral. "It's not hard to report your
results. It only takes about an hour," he said. Nor does reporting to the
national trial database jeopardize future publication in a peer-reviewed
journal, he said. "Some studies are small, but you have to ask: If the
results are not important enough to be reported, was the study important enough
to be done? You should not have conducted the study if you can't provide timely
results."
He noted that those with concerns about a drug could perhaps
tap into trial results circuitously by checking relevant studies registered on
ClinicalTrials.gov and asking the investigators directly to share their
unreported data.
And although researchers do need adequate time to ensure
accurate data, "some, inexplicably, never share their findings," Dr
Krumholz said. In his view, less effort should be put into identifying reasons
and more into rectifying the unjustifiable status quo: "We can spend our
time understanding the causes, or we can just fix it."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/859214?nlid=100824_3404&src=WNL_mdplsnews_160226_mscpedit_neur&uac=60196BR&spon=26&impID=1003608&faf=1
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, Harold H Hines Jr. Publication and reporting of clinical
trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers. BMJ published on line.
Abstract
Objective To determine rates of publication and reporting of
results within two years for all completed clinical trials registered in
ClinicalTrials.gov across leading academic medical centers in the United
States.
Design Cross sectional analysis.
Setting Academic medical centers in the United States.
Participants Academic medical centers with 40 or more
completed interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Methods Using the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov
database and manual review, we identified all interventional clinical trials
registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a primary completion date between October
2007 and September 2010 and with a lead investigator affiliated with an
academic medical center.
Main outcome measures The proportion of trials that
disseminated results, defined as publication or reporting of results on
ClinicalTrials.gov, overall and within 24 months of study completion.
Results We identified 4347 interventional clinical trials
across 51 academic medical centers. Among the trials, 1005 (23%) enrolled more
than 100 patients, 1216 (28%) were double blind, and 2169 (50%) were phase II
through IV. Overall, academic medical centers disseminated results for 2892
(66%) trials, with 1560 (35.9%) achieving this within 24 months of study
completion. The proportion of clinical trials with results disseminated within
24 months of study completion ranged from 16.2% (6/37) to 55.3% (57/103) across
academic medical centers. The proportion of clinical trials published within 24
months of study completion ranged from 10.8% (4/37) to 40.3% (31/77) across
academic medical centers, whereas results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov
ranged from 1.6% (2/122) to 40.7% (72/177).
Conclusions Despite the ethical mandate and expressed values
and mission of academic institutions, there is poor performance and noticeable
variation in the dissemination of clinical trial results across leading
academic medical centers.