Discrepancies in the results reported for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: A comparison between ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed journals

Abstract

Objective:

We aimed to compare the results of phase III and IV clinical trials examining drugs to treat multiple sclerosis (MS) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov to those published in peer-reviewed journals.

Methods:

After identifying trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, consecutive searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for matching publications. Information regarding participants and efficacy and safety results was extracted and compared. The degree of consistency was classified as ‘concordant’, ‘discrepant’ or ‘not comparable’. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to model time to reporting.

Results:

In total, 65 trials were appraised. The median time from completion to reporting was shorter for ClinicalTrials.gov (16.4 vs 27.3 months; p = 0.010). Information availability was generally higher in journals except for serious adverse events (SAEs) (86.2% vs 100.0%, p = 0.029) and their description (78.2% vs 100.0%, p < 0.001). However, 45 trials had at least one reporting discrepancy (69.2%). Three studies omitted one or more primary outcomes in the matching journal publication. Regarding safety results, the lowest consistencies were found for causes of death (60.0%) and description of SAEs (27.9%).

Conclusion:

Consulting both ClinicalTrials.gov and journals increases the accessibility to MS clinical trial results. Some data were frequently missing or disagreed between sources, raising concerns about transparency and generalizability of results.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis clinical trial transparency registry

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Filippi

Bar-Or

Piehl

, et al. Multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2018; 4(1): 43.

Jakimovski

Bittner

Zivadinov

, et al. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2023; 403: 183–202.

World Medical Association (WMA). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310(20): 2191–2194.

Mayden

. Peer review: Publication’s gold standard. J Adv Pract Oncol 2012; 3(2): 117–122.

Song

Parekh

Hooper

, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14(8): iii, ix–xi, 1–193.

Kelly

Sadeghieh

Adeli

. Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC 2014; 25(3): 227–243.

Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. Pub. L. 110-85, 121 Stat. 823. 2007 Sep 27.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Clinical trials registration, https://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/clinical-trials-registration (accessed 27 February 2024).

WAME Editorial Policy Committee. The registration of clinical trials. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), https://wame.org/registration-clinical-trials (accessed 12 November 2023).

10.

ClinicalTrials.gov. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov (accessed 27 February 2024).

11.

Zarin

Fain

Dobbins

, et al. 10-year update on study results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(20): 1966–1974.

12.

Tang

Ravaud

Riveros

, et al. Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med 2015; 13(1): 189.

13.

Hartung

Zarin

Guise

J-M

, et al. Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(7): 477–483.

14.

Becker

Krumholz

Ben-Josef

, et al. Reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov and high-impact journals. JAMA 2014; 311(10): 1063–1065.

15.

Earley

Lau

Uhlig

. Haphazard reporting of deaths in clinical trials: A review of cases of ClinicalTrials.gov records and matched publications–A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2013; 3(1): e001963.

16.

Chen

Borglund

Postema

, et al. Reporting of clinical trial safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov for FDA-approved drugs: A cross-sectional analysis. Clin Trials 2022; 19(4): 442–451.

17.

Paludan-Müller

Créquit

Boutron

. Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications–A methodological review. BMC Med 2021; 19(1): 88.

18.

Cahan

Anand

. Second thoughts on the final rule: An analysis of baseline participant characteristics reports on ClinicalTrials.gov. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(11): e0185886.

19.

Riveros

Dechartres

Perrodeau

, et al. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med 2013; 10(12): e1001566.

20.

Talebi

Redberg

Ross

. Consistency of trial reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications: One decade after FDAAA. Trials 2020; 21(1): 675.

21.

Schulz

Altman

Moher

. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340(1): c332.

22.

Mascarenas-Garcia

Rivero-de-Aguilar

Pérez-Ríos

, et al. Best practices in phase III clinical trials on DMTs for multiple sclerosis: A systematic analysis and appraisal of published trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2024; 95: 333–341.

23.

Rivero-de-Aguilar

Pérez-Ríos

Ruano-Raviña

, et al. Evidence of publication bias in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: A comparative analysis of published and unpublished studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2023; 94(8): 597–604.

24.

Rivero-de-Aguilar

Mascareñas-García

Pérez-Ríos

, et al. Recommendations for the critical reading of clinical trials on disease modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis. Neurologia. Forthcoming 2024.

25.

Jones

Safferman

Adams

, et al. Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: A cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open 2017; 7(10): e017719.

26.

Fleminger

Goldacre

. Prevalence of clinical trial status discrepancies: A cross-sectional study of 10,492 trials registered on both ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register. PLoS ONE 2018; 13(3): e0193088.

27.

Final rule for clinical trials registration and results information submission (42 C.F.R. Part 11), 2016, https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/documents/FinalRuleChanges-12Dec2016.pdf

28.

DeVito

Bacon

Goldacre

. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort study. Lancet 2020; 395(10221): 361–369.

29.

Prayle

Hurley

Smyth

. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross sectional study. BMJ 2012; 344: d7373.

30.

Anderson

Chiswell

Peterson

, et al. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(11): 1031–1039.

31.

Jalusic

Ellenberger

Stahmann

, et al. Adverse events in MS patients fulfilling or not inclusion criteria of the respective clinical trial–The problem of generalizability. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2023; 69: 104422.

32.

Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency, 2015.

33.

Chan

A-W

Hróbjartsson

Haahr

, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 2004; 291(20): 2457–2465.

34.

Dwan

Gamble

Williamson

, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias–An updated review. PLOS ONE 2013; 8(7): e66844.

35.

Erviti

Wright

Bassett

, et al. Restoring mortality data in the FOURIER cardiovascular outcomes trial of evolocumab in patients with cardiovascular disease: A reanalysis based on regulatory data. BMJ Open 2022; 12(12): e060172.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB