Recent landscape and trends for industry‐sponsored pediatric clinical trials in China from 2013 to 2022
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10951485 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThere has been a growing recognition on the importance of diversity in clinical trials. Existing research has highlighted a significant demographic imbalance. Amidst this renewed focus on diversity, it is crucial to acknowledge that Asia comprises over half of the world's population. Given the region's demographic significance, we sought to compare various characteristics and growth rates for trials with sites in Asia against those without any sites in Asia.MethodsWe performed comprehensive analyses of industry-sponsored phase 2 and 3 oncology trials registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, using drugs or biologics as investigational agents and executed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. We applied the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) as an analytical tool to track the trial growth rates over this 5-year period.ResultsWe identified 894 industry-sponsored phase 2 and 3 cancer studies with available study location data. Out of these, 415 trials (46.42%) had study sites in Asia. Notably, these trials with sites in Asia were also more likely to be phase 3 trials (39.76% vs 6.47%, p < 0.001), include female and paediatric populations, and be randomised trials. Interestingly, lung and stomach cancers were more commonly studied in these trials, while myeloma was less commonly studied. The number of trial sites for liver cancer was not significantly higher for Asia, even though the incidence of the disease is much higher in this region. Despite an overall declining trend in the number of clinical trials in the last 5 years, we observed a transitional positive increase in the CAGR from 2020 to 2021 for trials with sites in Asia. However, East Asia, specifically China, exhibited a disproportionate overrepresentation in these trials.ConclusionsThere are notable characteristics of clinical trials with sites in Asia. Comprehending these disparities may aid in the strategic planning to enhance a balanced representation of ethnicities in trials.
| S-EPMC10881454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.MethodsWe analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.Results119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).ConclusionsBased on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.
| S-EPMC4681996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUS and EU pediatric laws promote industry-sponsored pediatric studies, based on the therapeutic orphans concept that claims discrimination of children in drug treatment and drug development.ObjectiveWe investigated the medical validity of international pediatric studies with centers in Slovenia, an EU member state, and challenge their medical utility.MethodsWe analyzed international industry-sponsored pediatric studies with centers in Slovenia, listed in www.ClinicalTrials.gov, for their medical value.ResultsMost pediatric studies triggered by the US Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency were/are without medical or scientific value. They were/are formally and regulatorily justified, but lack medical sense and thus were/are unethical. Several even harm children and/or adolescents with serious diseases by exposing them to placebo or substandard treatment.ConclusionsPediatric studies triggered by US and EU regulatory demands are a serious abuse of nonneonatal children and adolescents in Slovenia and worldwide. They are medically redundant at best and often deter patients from effective innovative personalized therapy. They also exclude young patients from reasonable studies. Institutional review boards/ethics committees should be alerted, should critically review all ongoing pediatric studies, should suspend those found to be questionable, and should reject newly submitted questionable ones.
| S-EPMC6677645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo quantify the carbon footprint from a sample of pharma industry sponsored phase III trials. To develop an approach that can readily be applied to future trials by AstraZeneca and other trial sponsors.DesignLife cycle assessment including all the sources of carbon emissions associated with a completed, an ongoing and a planned clinical trial. The methodology followed the guidance on appraising the sustainability of Care Pathways, developed by the UK National Health Service in collaboration with parties across the healthcare system.SettingThree multicentre late phase trials. One completed heart failure trial, one ongoing oncology trial and one asthma trial with the addition of devices to be representative of current practice.ParticipantsThe three trials had a total number of 7412 participants.Main outcome measuresTotal carbon emissions from each trial, the drivers of those emissions and the emissions per patient.ResultsThe total carbon footprint for the cardiovascular trial was calculated as 2498 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), the first 3 years of the oncology trial resulted in 1632 tonnes CO2e and the respiratory trial 1437 tonnes CO2e.ConclusionsWe have shown that it is feasible to perform a retrospective life cycle assessment to appraise the carbon footprint of large clinical trials and confirmed that phase III trials result in significant emissions. Having identified all the drivers of emissions and their magnitude, we are well placed to develop a plan for achieving net-zero carbon clinical trials. Now it is possible to expand the use of life cycle assessment to planned studies so that scientific aims can be achieved with a minimum of carbon emissions. We encourage other trialists to apply the same methodology as a necessary first step in reducing the carbon footprint of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10445340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to estimate the provincial and nationwide costs of industry-sponsored drug clinical trials (CTs) in Canada.MethodsWe used the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, and included all industry-sponsored drug CTs that were conducted in Canada and completed in 2016. We estimated the costs of the study drugs using the market price. Estimates of the costs of management and patient services were based on industry contracts.ResultsThe sample included 394 CTs that were conducted in 2039 facilities in Canada and provided services for 20,126 Canadian enrollees. Two-thirds of the CTs (277 of 394) were in the non-cancer category. On average, the drug costs per patient were 89,680 Canadian dollars ($Can) during the lifespan of the CTs, and were higher in cancer CTs than in non-cancer CTs ($Can216,876 vs. $Can65,274). The total costs of industry-sponsored drug CTs completed in 2016 was $Can2093.7 million. Drug costs accounted for the majority of this total ($Can1804.9 million). Ontario ($Can781.2 million) and Quebec ($Can757.5 million) had the highest costs.ConclusionThe costs of industry-sponsored drug CTs completed in 2016 when measured in terms of market prices in Canada were valued at $Can2.1 billion.
| S-EPMC7248139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Industry-sponsored clinical trials produce high-quality data sets that can be used by researchers to generate new knowledge. We assessed the availability of individual participant-level data (IPD) from large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies and compiled a list of available trials. METHODS AND RESULTS:We identified all randomized cardiovascular interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with >5000 enrollment, sponsored by 1 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies by 2014 global sales. Availability of IPD for each trial was ascertained by searching each company's website/data-sharing portal. If availability could not be determined, each company was contacted electronically. Of 60 included trials, IPD are available for 15 trials (25%) consisting of 204 452 patients. IPD are unavailable for 15 trials (25%). Reasons for unavailability were: cosponsor did not agree to make IPD available (4 trials) and trials were not conducted within a specific time (5 trials); for the remaining 6 trials, no specific reason was provided. For 30 trials (50%), availability of IPD could not be definitively determined either because of no response or requirements for a full proposal (23 trials). CONCLUSIONS:IPD from 1 in 4 large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies are confirmed available to researchers for secondary research, a valuable opportunity to enhance science. However, IPD from 1 in 4 trials are not available, and data availability could not be definitively determined for half of our sample. For several of these trials, companies require a full proposal to determine availability, making use of the IPD by researchers less certain.
| S-EPMC4859296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.
| S-EPMC8406615 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10326289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.Study design and settingsWe undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.ResultsGSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47-0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74-1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.ConclusionsWhile overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.
| S-EPMC3605423 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10687656 | biostudies-literature