Faculty Bibliography

Importance/UNASSIGNED:The complete and timely dissemination of clinical trial data is essential to all fields of medicine, with delayed or incomplete data release having potentially deleterious effects on both patient care and scientific inquiry. While prior analyses have noted a substantial lag in the reporting of final clinical study results, we sought to refine these observations through use of a novel starting point for the measurement of dissemination delays: the date of a corporate press release regarding a phase 3 study's results. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To measure the length of time elapsed between when a sponsor had results of study findings they deemed important to announce, and when the medical community had access to them. Design and Setting/UNASSIGNED:Covering the years 2011 through 2016, we measured the delay from when 8 large pharmaceutical companies issued a press release announcing completed analyses of phase 3 clinical trials in oncology, and the public sharing of those results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal as found via PubMed or Google Scholar. Press releases announcing regulatory steps and presentation schedules for conferences were excluded, as were those announcing results from preclinical trials, follow-up analyses, and studies of supportive care therapies or various modes of infusion for the same therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Time to public dissemination of clinical trial data. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the 100 press releases in our sample, 70 (70%) reported positive results, but only 31 (31%) included the magnitude of study findings. Through the end of follow-up, 99 (99%) of press releases had an associated peer-reviewed publication, complete data posting to ClinicalTrials.gov, or both, with a median time to reporting of 300 days (95% CI, 263-348 days). Positive findings were reported more quickly than negative ones (median of 272; 95% CI, 211-318 days vs 407; 95% CI, 298-705 days; log-rank P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Even for the most pressing study findings, median publication delays approach 1 year. As publication delays hinder research progress and advancements in clinical care, policies that enable early preprint release or public posting of completed data analysis should be pursued.

BACKGROUND:Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder of life-threatening hyperphagia, obesity, intellectual deficits, compulsivity, and other behavioral problems. The efficacy and safety of i.n. carbetocin, an oxytocin analog, was evaluated in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial in adolescents with PWS. METHODS:Eligible patients aged 10-18 years with genetically confirmed PWS were randomized (1:1) to i.n. carbetocin or placebo 3 times daily for 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in parent/caregiver-rated Hyperphagia in PWS Questionnaire-Responsiveness (HPWSQ-R) total score. Secondary efficacy endpoints included HPWSQ-R behavior, drive, and severity domains; clinician-rated HPWSQ; Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Severity Scale; food domain of the Reiss Profile; and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. Endpoints were assessed using analysis of covariance. Relationship between primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS:Demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between treatment groups (carbetocin, n = 17; placebo, n = 20). Patients receiving carbetocin had statistically significant reductions in HPWSQ-R total score at study end (-15.6) versus patients receiving placebo (-8.9; P = 0.029); several secondary efficacy endpoints also demonstrated significant differences (P < 0.05). Treatment effects for the primary and secondary endpoints were highly correlated (P ≤ 0.0001). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:I.n. carbetocin was well tolerated and improved hyperphagia and behavioral symptoms of PWS. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01968187FUNDING. The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Recruitment was aided by ongoing work in PWS performed through Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant U54 HD083211.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:The Right to Try Act of 2017 allows patients with life-threatening conditions to access investigational medicines outside clinical trials without oversight from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A better understanding of existing expanded access programs can inform the consideration and implementation of both the federal Right to Try Act and state right-to-try laws. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the timing and duration of expanded access programs for investigational medicines initiated prior to FDA approval. Design and Setting/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study examined expanded access and compassionate use programs registered through August 1, 2017, identified from ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Start date of each program and 3 key regulatory dates (investigational new drug application activation, initial new drug application submission, and FDA approval), and timing and duration of expanded access availability in relation to new drug application submission and FDA approval. Results/UNASSIGNED:Through ClinicalTrials.gov, 92 FDA-approved drugs and biologics with associated expanded access programs initiated prior to FDA approval were identified. These programs were initiated between September 1996 and June 2017 for medicines that were most commonly used to treat cancer (n = 46 [50.0%]); metabolic, endocrine, and genetic diseases (n = 16 [17.4%]); and infectious diseases (n = 14 [15.2%]). The median (interquartile range) premarket expanded access availability was 10.0 (6.0-19.5) months, constituting a median (interquartile range) of 14% (7%-25%) of the premarket clinical development period (investigational new drug application activation to FDA approval). Of 92 expanded access programs, 64 (69.6%) were initiated just before or after new drug application submission: 24 (26.1%) were initiated during the 6-month period before, and 40 (43.5%) in the 6 months after. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Over the past 2 decades, expanded access programs have provided access to investigational medicines for which evidence of safety and effectiveness was established. For medicines that ultimately receive FDA approval, these findings suggest that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry have established a balance between investigational new drug access and protection of patients from therapies without established safety. This balance may be compromised by policy makers seeking to speed access to investigational medicines through the Right to Try Act.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To characterize postmarketing requirements for new drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine rates and timeliness of registration, results reporting, and publication of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross sectional analysis. SETTING/METHODS:Postmarketing requirements for all new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012, with follow-up up to 15 November 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Postmarketing requirements and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including FDA authority, study design, and study characteristics. Rates and timeliness of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer reviewed journals of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials. RESULTS:Between 2009 and 12, the FDA approved 97 new drugs and biologics for 106 indications with at least one postmarketing requirement at the time of first approval, for a total of 437 postmarketing requirements. Postmarket study descriptions were short (median word count 44 (interquartile range 29-71)) and often lacked information to determine an up to date progress (131 (30%)). 220 (50.3%) postmarketing requirements were for new animal or other studies (including pharmacokinetic studies); 134 (30.7%) were for prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials; and 83 (19.0%) were for secondary analyses or follow-up studies. Of 110 clinical trials, 38 (34.5%), 44 (40.0%), 62 (56.4%), 66 (60.0%), and 98 (89.1%) did not report enough information to establish use of randomization, comparator type, allocation, outcome, and number of patients to be enrolled, respectively. Of 134 required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials, 102 (76.1%) were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; of 50 registered and completed studies, 36 (72.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among 65 completed studies, 47 (72.3%) had either reported results or were published a median of 47 months (interquartile range 32-67) after FDA approval. 32 (68.1%) of these 47 studies did not report results publicly by the time of their original FDA report submission deadline. CONCLUSIONS:Postmarketing requirements for new drugs and biologics were often briefly described and did not contain enough information to characterize study designs. Approximately three quarters of postmarketing requirements for prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, and nearly three quarters of completed studies reported results or were published, suggesting that at least a quarter of these required studies are not being publicly disseminated.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To define a series of clinical trial transparency measures and apply them to large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their 2014 FDA-approved drugs. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of all clinical trials supporting 2014 Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)-approved new drug applications (NDAs) for novel drugs sponsored by large companies. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Data from over 45 sources, including Drugs@FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, corporate and international registries; PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, corporate press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and personal communications with drug manufacturers. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Trial registration, results reporting, clinical study report (CSR) synopsis sharing, biomedical journal publication, and FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA) compliance, analysed on the drug level. RESULTS:The FDA approved 19 novel new drugs, sponsored by 11 large companies, involving 553 trials, in 2014. We analysed 505 relevant trials. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 86%-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 71% (IQR 57%-100%) reported results or shared a CSR synopsis, 80% (70%-100%) were published and 96% (80%-100%) were publicly available in some form by 13 months after FDA approval. Disclosure rates were lower at FDA approval (65%) and improved significantly by 6 months post FDA approval. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 75%-100%) of FDAAA-applicable trials were compliant. Half of reviewed drugs had publicly disclosed results for all trials in patients in our sample. One trial was uniquely registered in a corporate registry, and not ClinicalTrials.gov; 0 trials were uniquely registered in international registries. CONCLUSIONS:Among large pharmaceutical companies and new drugs, clinical trial transparency is high based on several standards, although opportunities for improvement remain. Transparency is markedly higher for trials in patients than among all trials supporting drug approval, including trials in healthy volunteers. Ongoing efforts to publicly track companies' transparency records and recognise exemplary companies may encourage further progress.

AIMS:There are no treatments for the extreme hyperphagia and obesity in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS). The bestPWS clinical trial assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) inhibitor, beloranib. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants with PWS (12-65 years old) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to biweekly placebo, 1.8 mg beloranib or 2.4 mg beloranib injection for 26 weeks at 15 US sites. Co-primary endpoints were the changes in hyperphagia [measured by Hyperphagia Questionnaire for Clinical Trials (HQ-CT); possible score 0-36] and weight by intention-to-treat. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02179151. RESULTS:One-hundred and seven participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: placebo (n = 34); 1.8 mg beloranib (n = 36); or 2.4 mg beloranib (n = 37). Improvement (reduction) in HQ-CT total score was greater in the 1.8 mg (mean difference -6.3, 95% CI -9.6 to -3.0; P = .0003) and 2.4 mg beloranib groups (-7.0, 95% CI -10.5 to -3.6; P = .0001) vs placebo. Compared with placebo, weight change was greater with 1.8 mg (mean difference - 8.2%, 95% CI -10.8 to -5.6; P < .0001) and 2.4 mg beloranib (-9.5%, 95% CI -12.1 to -6.8; P < .0001). Injection site bruising was the most frequent adverse event with beloranib. Dosing was stopped early due to an imbalance in venous thrombotic events in beloranib-treated participants (2 fatal events of pulmonary embolism and 2 events of deep vein thrombosis) compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS:MetAP2 inhibition with beloranib produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in hyperphagia-related behaviours and weight loss in participants with PWS. Although investigation of beloranib has ceased, inhibition of MetAP2 is a novel mechanism for treating hyperphagia and obesity.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the characteristics of "expanded access" and "compassionate use" programs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the percentage of drugs provided through these programs that ultimately received FDA marketing approval. RESULTS: We identified 398 expanded access and compassionate use programs (hereafter referred to as expanded access programs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Industry funded 61% (n = 241) of programs individually or collaboratively, while NIH and the US Federal Government rarely funded programs (3% [n = 11] and 2% [n = 6], respectively). Most programs provided access to drugs (71% [n = 282]), 11% to biologics (n = 43), and 10% to medical devices (n = 40). These programs covered 460 unique conditions, the most common being HIV (n = 26), leukemia (22), and multiple myeloma (n = 14). Only 2% of programs reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Most programs (82%) were open to enrolling adults and seniors (n = 326). These programs provided access to 210 unique experimental drugs, of which 76% have received FDA approval.

BACKGROUND: Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry. METHODS: Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer's interpretation. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n = 17) and diabetes (n = 15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3-8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p < 0.001), to be published (76 of 78 (97%) vs 93 of 105 (89%); p = 0.03), and to present findings concordant with the FDA reviewer's interpretation (74 of 76 (97%) vs 78 of 93 (84%); p = 0.004). Pre FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 80 (76%) trials as positive and 91 (98%) were published as positive. Post FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 71 (91%) trials as positive and 71 (93%) were published as positive. CONCLUSIONS: FDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Reports an error in "Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: A tool for protocol writers and ethics committees" by Rebecca H. Li, Mary C. Wacholtz, Mark Barnes, Liam Boggs, Susan Callery-D'Amico, Amy Davis, Alla Digilova, David Forster, Kate Heffernan, Maeve Luthin, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Lindsay McNair, Jennifer E. Miller, Jacquelyn Murphy, Luann Van Campen, Mark Wilenzick, Delia Wolf, Cris Woolston, Carmen Aldinger and Barbara E. Bierer (Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics, 2016[Apr], Vol 42[4], 229-234). The author affiliations for this article have been corrected and are included in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2016-42750-007.) [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 42(4) of Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics (see record 2016-42750-008). In the original article author affiliations were incorrectly mentioned. The correct affiliations are given in the erratum.] A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit ('Ethics Tool Kit') has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.