924The landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia from 2008-2018

Background There are major health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand the landscape of Indigenous trial activity. Methods We extracted data from all Australian trials registered between 2008-2018 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov. Indigenous-focused trials were identified by searching for relevant terms such as ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’. Indigenous versus non-Indigenous trials and Australian trials overall were compared by conditions studied, intervention type, study design and funding. Results Of the 9206 included trials, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, and these were mostly in ‘Public Health’ (n = 69, 50%), ‘Mental Health’ (n = 35, 25%) and ‘Cardiovascular’ (n = 25, 18%) (Figure). Compared to other Australian trials, Indigenous trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 16.47, 95%CI=8.43-29.99) and public health (OR 4.87, 95%CI=3.65-6.41), and were more likely to focus on screening (OR 3.57, 95%CI=2.10-5.70) and prevention (OR 2.24, 95%CI=1.61-3.08) rather than treatment (OR 0.40, 95%CI =0.30-0.52). They were less likely to be blinded (OR 1.72, 95%CI=1.20-2.49), or have any industry involvement (OR 2.52, 95%CI=1.54-4.43). Conclusions Indigenous trials differed from other Australian trials in health conditions studied, intervention focus, blinding and industry involvement. Relative to population size and burden of disease, the number of trials focusing on Indigenous health is low. Key messages Trial registries can be used to explore whether research appropriately addresses diverse populations such as Indigenous Australians. This can inform future research prioritisation.