Search

Data sharing is essential for promoting scientific discoveries and informed decision-making in clinical practice. In 2013, PhRMA/EFPIA recognised the importance of data sharing and supported initiatives to enhance clinical trial data transparency and promote scientific advancements. However, despite these commitments, recent investigations indicate significant scope for improvements in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on a decade of literature and policy developments, this article presents perspectives from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and consumers. The focus is on policy and process updates to the PhRMA/EFPIA 2013 data sharing commitments, aiming to enhance the sharing and accessibility of participant-level data, clinical study reports, protocols, statistical analysis plans, lay summaries, and result publications from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. The proposed updates provide clear recommendations regarding which data should be shared, when it should be shared, and under what conditions. The suggested improvements aim to develop a data sharing ecosystem that supports science and patient-centred care. Good data sharing principles require resources, time, and commitment. Notwithstanding these challenges, enhancing data sharing is necessary for efficient resource utilization, increased scientific collaboration, and better decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Objective: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis.Methods: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data.Results: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting.Conclusion: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias.Trial Registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347 . Registered on 15 May 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient's genomic risk of melanoma. Aim: Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs. Method: The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically. Results: GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors. Conclusion: These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]