Reporting of clinical trial safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov for FDA-approved drugs: A cross-sectional analysis

Abstract

Background

Adverse events identified during clinical trials can be important early indicators of drug safety, but complete and timely data on safety results have historically been difficult to access. The aim was to compare the availability, completeness, and concordance of safety results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications.

Methods

We analyzed clinical trials used in the Food and Drug Administration safety assessment of new drugs approved between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. The key safety outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Availability of safety results was measured by the presence and timing of a record of trial-level results in ClinicalTrials.gov and a corresponding peer-reviewed publication. For the subset of trials with available results, completeness was defined as the reporting of safety results for all participants and compared between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. To assess concordance, we compared the numeric results for safety outcomes reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications to results in Food and Drug Administration trial reports.

Results

Among 156 trials studying 52 drugs, 91 (58.3%) trials reported safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov and 106 (67.9%) in peer-reviewed publications (risk difference = −9.6%, 95% confidence interval = −20.3 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was reported sooner in published articles compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (log-rank test, p = 0.01). There was no difference in time to reporting for serious adverse events (p = 0.05), adverse events (p = 0.09), or withdrawals due to adverse events (p = 0.20). Complete reporting of all-cause mortality was similar in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications (74.7% vs 78.3%, respectively; risk difference = −3.6%, 95% confidence interval = −15.5 to 8.3) and higher in ClinicalTrials.gov for serious adverse events (100% vs 79.2%; risk difference = 20.8%, 95% confidence interval = 13.0 to 28.5) and adverse events (100% vs 86.8%; risk difference = 13.2%, 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 19.7). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less often completely reported in ClinicalTrials.gov (62.6% vs 92.5%; risk difference = −29.8%, 95% confidence interval = −40.1 to −18.7). No difference was found in concordance of results between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications for all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Conclusion

Safety results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov at a similar rate as in peer-reviewed publications, with more complete reporting of certain safety outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov. Future efforts should consider adverse event reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov as an accessible data source for post-marketing surveillance and other evidence synthesis tasks.

Keywords

Clinical trials drug safety trial registries adverse event reporting post-marketing surveillance evidence synthesis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Downing

Shah

Aminawung

, et al. Postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 2001 and 2010. J Am Med Assoc 2017; 317(18): 1854–1863.

Jüni

Nartey

Reichenbach

, et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 2004; 364(9450): 2021–2029.

Nissen

. The rise and fall of rosiglitazone. Eur Heart J 2010; 31(7): 773–776.

Psaty

Meslin

Breckenridge

. A lifecycle approach to the evaluation of FDA approval methods and regulatory actions: opportunities provided by a new IOM report. J Am Med Assoc 2012; 307(23): 2491–2492.

Kesselheim

Wang

Franklin

, et al. Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study. BMJ 2015; 351: h4633.

Frank

Himmelstein

Woolhandler

, et al. Era of faster FDA drug approval has also seen increased black-box warnings and market withdrawals. Health Aff 2014; 33(8): 1453–1459.

Hammad

Neyarapally

Iyasu

, et al. The future of population-based postmarket drug risk assessment: a regulator’s perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 94(3): 349–358.

Platt

Wilson

Chan

, et al. The new sentinel network—improving the evidence of medical-product safety. N Eng. J Med 2009; 361(7): 645–647.

Oliveira

Lopes

Nunes

, et al. The EU-ADR Web Platform: delivering advanced pharmacovigilance tools. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013; 22(5): 459–467.

10.

Harpaz

DuMouchel

LePendu

, et al. Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 93(6): 539–546.

11.

Wang

. Large-scale combining signals from both biomedical literature and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to improve post-marketing drug safety signal detection. BMC Bioinform 2014; 15(1): 17.

12.

Tau

Shochat

Gafter-Gvili

, et al. Association between data sources and US Food and Drug Administration drug safety communications. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179(11): 1590–1592.

13.

Manzoli

Flacco

D’Addario

, et al. Non-publication and delayed publication of randomized trials on vaccines: survey. BMJ 2014; 348: g3058.

14.

Ross

Mulvey

Hines

, et al. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009; 6(9): e1000144.

15.

Rees

Pica

Monuteaux

, et al. Noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2019; 16(11): e1002966.

16.

Dwan

Altman

Arnaiz

, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 2008; 3(8): e3081.

17.

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.

18.

Pitrou

Boutron

Ahmad

, et al. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(19): 1756–1761.

19.

Phillips

Cornelius

. Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry. BMJ Open 2020; 10(6): e036875.

20.

Chuang-Stein

Xia

. The practice of pre-marketing safety assessment in drug development. J Biopharm Stat 2013; 23(1): 3–25.

21.

Zarin

Fain

Dobbins

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

22.

Zarin

Tse

Williams

, et al. Update on trial registration 11 years after the ICMJE policy was established. N Engl J Med 2017; 376(4): 383–391.

23.

Zarin

Tse

Williams

, et al. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov—the final rule. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(20): 1998–2004.

24.

Zarin

. The Culture of Trial Results Reporting at Academic Medical Centers. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180(2): 319–320.

25.

Hartung

Zarin

Guise

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

26.

Talebi

Redberg

Ross

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

27.

Becker

Krumholz

Ben-Josef

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

28.

Tang

Ravaud

Riveros

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

29.

Pradhan

Singh

. Comparison of data on serious adverse events and mortality in ClinicalTrials. gov, corresponding journal articles, and FDA medical reviews: cross-sectional analysis. Drug Saf 2018; 41(9): 849–857.

30.

Schwartz

Woloshin

Zheng

, et al. Clinical trials.gov and drugs@FDA: a comparison of results reporting for new drug approval trials. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165(6): 421–430.

31.

Earley

Lau

Uhlig

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

32.

Dunn

Bourgeois

. Is it time for computable evidence synthesis? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27(6): 972–975.

33.

Ioannidis

JPA

Evans

SJW

Gøtzsche

, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141(10): 781–788.

34.

Anderson

Chiswell

Peterson

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

35.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration amendments act of 2007 (FDAAA): public law 110–85, 2007, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf

36.

Wallach

Luxkaranayagam

Dhruva

, et al. Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Med 2019; 17(1): 117.

37.

Wallach

Egilman

Dhruva

, et al. Postmarket studies required by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs and biologics approved between 2009 and 2012: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2018; 361: k2031.