The proportion of randomized controlled trials that inform clinical practice
- McGill University, Canada
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, United States
Abstract
Prior studies suggest that clinical trials are often hampered by problems in design, conduct and reporting that limit their uptake in clinical practice. We have described 'informativeness' as the ability of a trial to guide clinical, policy or research decisions. Little is known about the proportion of initiated trials that inform clinical practice. We created a cohort of randomized interventional clinical trials in three disease areas (ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and lung cancer), that were initiated between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 using ClinicalTrials.gov. We restricted inclusion to trials aimed at answering a clinical question related to the treatment or prevention of disease. Our primary outcome was the proportion of clinical trials fulfilling four conditions of informativeness: importance of the clinical question, trial design, feasibility, and reporting of results. Our study included 125 clinical trials. The proportion meeting four conditions for informativeness was 26.4% (95% CI 18.9 - 35.0). Sixty-seven percent of participants were enrolled in informative trials. The proportion of informative trials did not differ significantly between our three disease areas. Our results suggest that the majority of clinical trials designed to guide clinical practice possess features that may compromise their ability to do so. This highlights opportunities to improve the scientific vetting of clinical research.
Data availability
The data set is available online on Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/3EGKU) (reference 18 in the manuscript).
Article and author information
Author details
Jonathan Kimmelman
Funding
Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
- Nora Hutchinson
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Copyright
© 2022, Hutchinson et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Download links
Further reading
-
- Medicine
- Neuroscience
C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists may improve both acute stroke outcome and long-term recovery. Despite their evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. With a panel of patients with lived experiences of stroke, we performed a systematic review of animal models of stroke that administered a CCR5 antagonist and assessed infarct size or behavioural outcomes. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool and alignment with the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) and Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations. Five studies representing 10 experiments were included. CCR5 antagonists reduced infarct volume (standard mean difference −1.02; 95% confidence interval −1.58 to −0.46) when compared to stroke-only controls. Varied timing of CCR5 administration (pre- or post-stroke induction) produced similar benefit. CCR5 antagonists significantly improved 11 of 16 behavioural outcomes reported. High risk of bias was present in all studies and critical knowledge gaps in the preclinical evidence were identified using STAIR/SRRR. CCR5 antagonists demonstrate promise; however, rigorously designed preclinical studies that better align with STAIR/SRRR recommendations and downstream clinical trials are warranted. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023393438).
-
- Medicine
Background:
Approximately one-third of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer experienced recurrence within 10 years after receiving 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab. The ExteNET study showed that 1 year of extended adjuvant neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy could reduce invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) events compared with placebo. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pyrotinib, an irreversible pan-HER receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk, HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer.
Methods:
This multicenter phase II trial was conducted at 23 centers in China. After enrollment, patients received 1 year of extended adjuvant pyrotinib (400 mg/day), which should be initiated within 6 months after the completion of 1-year adjuvant therapy (trastuzumab alone or plus pertuzumab). The primary endpoint was 2-year iDFS rate.
Results:
Between January 2019 and February 2022, 141 eligible women were enrolled and treated. As of October 10, 2022, the median follow-up was 24 (interquartile range, 18.0–34.0) months. The 2-year iDFS rate was 94.59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.97–97.38) in all patients, 94.90% (95% CI: 86.97–98.06) in patients who completed 1-year treatment, 90.32% (95% CI: 72.93–96.77) in patients who completed only 6-month treatment, 96.74% (95% CI: 87.57–99.18) in the hormone receptor (HR)-positive subgroup, 92.77% (95% CI: 83.48–96.93) in the HR-negative subgroup, 96.88% (95% CI: 79.82–99.55) in the lymph node-negative subgroup, 93.85% (95% CI: 86.81–97.20) in the lymph node-positive subgroup, 97.30% (95% CI: 82.32–99.61) in patients with adjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, and 93.48% (95% CI: 86.06–97.02) in patients with adjuvant trastuzumab. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (79.4%), fatigue (36.9%), lymphocyte count decreased (36.9%), nausea (33.3%), and hand-foot syndrome (33.3%).
Conclusions:
Extended adjuvant pyrotinib administrated after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy showed promising efficacy in patients with high-risk HER2-positive breast cancer. The follow-up is ongoing to determine the long-term benefit.
Funding:
No external funding was received for this work.
Clinical trial number:
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05880927
