Dataset Information

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This descriptive study of registered trials aimed to identify large clinical trials on antidepressants for mental disorders: (1) to assess what proportion could be labelled as 'seeding trials' (trials for marketing purposes) and (2) to describe their methodological characteristics and outcomes.

Design

A search was conducted across all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by drug name in March 2017.

Setting

All trials registered in the database of ClinicalTrials.gov were screened. Large registered studies were received and studies focusing prospectively on the effects of antidepressants in mental health disorders. Specific data items were extracted automatically, and subsequently inspected, corrected and completed by hand.

Participants

Prospective studies were selected focusing on the effects of antidepressants in any mental health disorder with 800 participants or more planned for inclusion.

Main outcome measures

Three members from the study team independently assessed the following 'seeding trial' characteristics in each registered study: a high level of involvement of the product manufacturer in the study design, in the data analysis and reporting of the study, an abnormally low ratio of patient numbers to study site, spin and/or omissions of clinically relevant findings in the abstracts, and conclusions that focused on secondary endpoints and surrogate markers. Secondary outcomes were the exploration of a functional outcome and suicidality.

Results

31 trials were identified from clinical trials database. 18/31 were published (58%). 8 of these 18 (44%) studies were identified as possible seeding trials. 13/31 (42%) large trials planned to explore functioning and 5/31 (16%) suicidality.

Conclusions

Large trials are rare in the field of antidepressant research. Some could be 'seeding trials'. Few explored suicidality. Identifying seeding trials from incomplete data entries in registries, especially when almost half of the studies were still unpublished, posed considerable challenges. The delay between our research and publication limits the strength of our conclusions.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017065591.

SUBMITTER: Martineau S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10414101 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Martineau Samuel S Cristea Ioana-Alina IA Chevance Astrid A Fanelli Daniele D Naudet Florian F

BMJ open 20230809 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>This descriptive study of registered trials aimed to identify large clinical trials on antidepressants for mental disorders: (1) to assess what proportion could be labelled as 'seeding trials' (trials for marketing purposes) and (2) to describe their methodological characteristics and outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>A search was conducted across all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by drug name in March 2017.<h4>Setting</h4>All trials registered in the database of ClinicalTrial ...[more]

PMID: 37558440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results.Results231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%-24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%-80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%-44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P?=?0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P?=?0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001).ConclusionsIn this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterise current COVID-19-related research activities.DesignCross-sectional analysis.SettingClinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov testing interventions relevant to COVID-19.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov was searched for COVID-19 and related terms to identify trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 1 May 2020 that test interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcome measuresWe classified trials according to intervention type, and report key trial characteristics including recruitment status, location, funder type, target enrolment number, intervention model (single group, randomised or sequential assignment) and projected completion date.ResultsOf the 630 identified clinical trials related to COVID-19, 509 (81%) involved the study of drugs or biological agents. Of these trials of drugs and biologics, 305 (60%) use an open-label design, 43 (8%) are single blinded (participant only) and 161 (32%) are double blinded (participant and investigator). 94 (18%) of the drug/biological trials are non-randomised. Either hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine is administered as part of the study protocol in 152 (30%) of the drug/biological trials. The total planned enrolment for these hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine trials is over 200 000 participants, which represents 65% of the total planned enrolment for all registered trials of drugs or biologics. There are also at least 25 registered trials of azithromycin (n=53), convalescent plasma (n=38), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=30), stem cell treatments (n=29) and tocilizumab (n=25). 142 trials were registered in the first 3 months of 2020, and 488 trials were registered between 1 April and 1 May 2020.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate a robust research response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though many of the currently planned and ongoing trials focus on a small number of potential therapies, and many also lack essential design features and power necessary to provide accurate treatment effect estimates.

Project description:ImportanceThe published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials.ObjectivesTo compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020.ExposuresProbiotic or antibiotic.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated.ResultsA total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

Project description:BackgroundDental caries, a widespread chronic oral disease, is caused by multiple factors including microorganisms, genetic predisposition. Despite being preventable, it poses a significant global burden. This study reviews all phase 4 clinical trials on dental caries registered at ClinicalTrials.gov to provide a comprehensive overview of their characteristics.MethodsA search was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database using keywords. The registration data for all relevant phase 4 studies concerning 'Dental Caries' were retrieved. This search was conducted on the 23rd of January, 2024.ResultsThe analysis included 58 phase 4 clinical trials, with most studies (67.2%) reporting complete data. The majority (63.8%) had fewer than 100 participants, and the predominant sponsors were medical institutions (77.6%). Geographically, the highest percentage of studies were conducted in South America (24.1%), with the lowest in North America (10.3%). Interventional trials primarily focused on treatment (51.7%) and prevention (41.4%), with a significant portion being randomized (93.1%). Blinding varied, with single and double blinding each used in 25.9% of studies. Drug interventions were the most common (60.6%), followed by other categories such as dietary supplements and procedures. Among drug interventions, agents containing fluoride were the largest category, accounting for 52.6% of the trials. Fluoride varnishes and silver diamine fluoride were the most frequently evaluated. Sedatives and pain relievers constituted 15.7% of the trials, with midazolam and ketamine being predominant. Other drugs accounted for 23.2% of the trials, featuring diverse substances such as inactivated poliovirus vaccine and xylitol. Dental materials and operative treatments made up 29.5% of the trials, with resin and fissure sealants being the most commonly evaluated.ConclusionThis analysis of phase 4 clinical trials highlighted fluoride as the most studied intervention for dental caries prevention. The analysis also revealed a need for further research on non-fluoride interventions and emphasized the importance of using evidence-based practices in dental care for improved oral health outcomes.Clinical trial numberNot applicable.

Project description:Objective: This study aimed to analyze the characteristics and reasons of early discontinuation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: OCD trials and relevant publications were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, respectively. The characteristics and details regarding the timely publication of trials were recorded. Cox regression analysis was used to explore factors associated with the early discontinuation of OCD trials. Results: The analysis included 298 OCD therapy trials. Most investigations recruited <100 patients and were more likely to involve adults. Of all OCD studies identified, 67.8% were randomized and 61.4% were blind (single- or double-blind). Universities and hospitals were recorded as the two primary locations in the majority of trials. A total of 155 trials (52%) were completed; however, only 29% of those were published. Of the published trials, >70% were published at least 1 year after completion. Behavioral therapy trials were the most common type of major treatment-aimed OCD trials (39%), followed by drug trials (35.1%) and device/procedure trials (24.7%). The univariate Cox regression analysis indicated that drug trials [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-5.43], absence of collaborators (HR = 3.87, 95% CI: 1.62-9.26), and sponsorship by industry (HR = 3.97, 95% CI: 1.49-10.53) were risk factors for early discontinuation of OCD trials. Further multivariate Cox regression showed that drug trials (HR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.71-9.08) and absence of collaborators (HR = 5.17, 95% CI: 1.97-13.54) were independent risk factors for early trial discontinuation of OCD trials. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Non-drug trials (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.21-9.11), absence of collaborators (OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.10-9.60), and non-blinded trials (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 1.05-26.2) were independent risk factors for unreported results in registry. Conclusion: The diagnosis and prevention of OCD are rarely investigated in trials. Underreporting and delayed reporting remain major problems. The type of intervention and participation of collaborators are associated with early discontinuation of OCD trials.

Dataset Information

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Prospero registration number

Publications

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets