Search

Abstract Background This research reviewed major Clinical Trial Registries (CTRs) and assessed the availability of fields on quality assurance for approved medicines used as Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs) in phase IV clinical trials. Methods Two reviewers independently assessed CTRs of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and of World Health Organization (WHO) platforms. Each CTR was checked by two reviewers on availability of fields on brand name, manufacturer’s name, approval status, approving authority, compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, and quality testing. In case of discrepancy, consensus was sought between the two reviewers. Results Of 19 identified CTRs, 8 and 6 belonged to WHO and ICMJE, respectively, while 5 were equally part of both platforms. All CTRs had an ‘intervention’ field where data on IMPs and IMP comparators are captured. The Canadian CTR used ‘drug name’ rather than ‘intervention’. The EU, Peruvian, and UK CTRs had fields for ‘brand name’. However, only the EU CTR had fields for ‘manufacturer’s name’, ‘approval status’, and ‘approving authority’. None of the CTRs had fields on ‘compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices’ or ‘quality testing’. Conclusion This study demonstrates that none of the CTRs of ICMJE and WHO platforms has adequate fields to establish that the source of post-marketing IMPs is of assured quality. This is astonishing given the lengthy requirements in WHO and ICMJE guidelines. Considering the relation between IMP quality and safety of clinical trial participants, the gap of quality assurance fields should be bridged at CTRs concurrently to adjustments of WHO and ICMJE guidelines on CTRs. Specifically, IMP quality testing addressing issues on IMP appearance, impurities, microbial contamination, and dosing should be conducted and reported before, during, and after clinical trial conduct. Until adoption of these measures, the EU CTR should be preferred for registration of phase IV clinical trials conducted in countries lacking stringent regulatory capacities.

Abstract Background The available evidence on the benefits and harms of novel drugs and therapeutic biologics at the time of approval is reported in publicly available documents provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We aimed to create a comprehensive database providing the relevant information required to systematically analyze and assess this early evidence in meta-epidemiological research. Methods We designed a modular and flexible database of systematically collected data. We identified all novel cancer drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2016, recorded regulatory characteristics, acquired the corresponding FDA approval documents, identified all clinical trials reported therein, and extracted trial design characteristics and treatment effects. Herein, we describe the rationale and design of the data collection process, particularly the organization of the data capture, the identification and eligibility assessment of clinical trials, and the data extraction activities. Discussion We established a comprehensive database on the comparative effects of drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA over a time period of 17 years for the treatment of cancer (solid tumors and hematological malignancies). The database provides information on the clinical trial evidence available at the time of approval of novel cancer treatments. The modular nature and structure of the database and the data collection processes allow updates, expansions, and adaption for a continuous meta-epidemiological analysis of novel drugs. The database allows us to systematically evaluate benefits and harms of novel drugs and therapeutic biologics. It provides a useful basis for meta-epidemiological research on the comparative effects of innovative cancer treatments and continuous evaluations of regulatory developments.

Background: There is no consensus on the preferred method for defining the non-inferiority margin in non-inferiority trials, and previous studies showed that the rationale for its choice is often not reported. This study investigated how the non-inferiority margin is defined in the published literature, and whether its reporting has changed over time.Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted for all published randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trials from January 1, 1966, to February 6, 2015. The primary outcome was the number of margins that were defined by methods other than the historical evidence of the active comparator. This was evaluated for a time trend. We also assessed the under-reporting of the methods of defining the margin as a secondary outcome, and whether this changed over time. Both outcomes were analyzed using a Poisson log-linear model. Predictors for better reporting of the methods, and the use of the fixed-margin method (one of the historical evidence methods) were also analyzed using logistic regression.Results: Two hundred seventy-three articles were included, which account for 273 non-inferiority margins. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of margins that were defined by other methods compared to those defined based on the historical evidence (ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.82, p = 0.11), and this did not change over time. The number of margins for which methods were unreported was similar to those with reported methods (ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.43, p = 0.31), with no change over time. The method of defining the margin was less often reported in journals with low-impact factors compared to journals with high-impact factors (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.37, p < 0.0001). The publication of the FDA draft guidance in 2010 was associated with increased reporting of the fixed-margin method (after versus before 2010) (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.12 to 13.35, p = 0.04).Conclusions: Non-inferiority margins are not commonly defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator, and they are poorly reported. Authors, reviewers, and editors need to take notice of reporting this critical information to allow for better judgment of non-inferiority trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This research reviewed major Clinical Trial Registries (CTRs) and assessed the availability of fields on quality assurance for approved medicines used as Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs) in phase IV clinical trials.Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed CTRs of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and of World Health Organization (WHO) platforms. Each CTR was checked by two reviewers on availability of fields on brand name, manufacturer's name, approval status, approving authority, compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, and quality testing. In case of discrepancy, consensus was sought between the two reviewers.Results: Of 19 identified CTRs, 8 and 6 belonged to WHO and ICMJE, respectively, while 5 were equally part of both platforms. All CTRs had an 'intervention' field where data on IMPs and IMP comparators are captured. The Canadian CTR used 'drug name' rather than 'intervention'. The EU, Peruvian, and UK CTRs had fields for 'brand name'. However, only the EU CTR had fields for 'manufacturer's name', 'approval status', and 'approving authority'. None of the CTRs had fields on 'compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices' or 'quality testing'.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that none of the CTRs of ICMJE and WHO platforms has adequate fields to establish that the source of post-marketing IMPs is of assured quality. This is astonishing given the lengthy requirements in WHO and ICMJE guidelines. Considering the relation between IMP quality and safety of clinical trial participants, the gap of quality assurance fields should be bridged at CTRs concurrently to adjustments of WHO and ICMJE guidelines on CTRs. Specifically, IMP quality testing addressing issues on IMP appearance, impurities, microbial contamination, and dosing should be conducted and reported before, during, and after clinical trial conduct. Until adoption of these measures, the EU CTR should be preferred for registration of phase IV clinical trials conducted in countries lacking stringent regulatory capacities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]