Abstract
OBJECTIVES Controlled human infection studies (CHIS) involve intentional exposure of human volunteers to infectious agents. Given the small size of CHIS, aggregating data across studies is critical to the field. The objectives of the current analysis were to (1) evaluate the use of ClinicalTrials.gov for CHIS data reporting and (2) compare CHIS clinical trial participant flow and AE reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov with the same data in corresponding published articles.
DESIGN ClinicalTrials.gov records that described a CHIS were included and data were accessed using the AACT API. These data were compared with results extracted from publications associated with included records’ NCT identifiers and compared in groups stratified by sponsor type, cohort size, and risk of bias in selection of the reported result as determined by Domain 5 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.
RESULTS We screened 5,131 ClinicalTrials.gov records for inclusion, reviewed 410 records in full, and included 344 records. The overall prevalence of any discrepancy was 40%. Compared with their respective groups, significant discrepancies were observed in publicly funded trials, trials in the 3rd quartile of study size, and trials with a high risk of bias in selection of the reported result. Five studies reported a total of five SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov records but not in any associated publications.
CONCLUSION We identified an overall prevalence of discrepancy of 40% in CHIS, which is comparable to the prevalence observed in other types of clinical trials. In general, medium-sized, publicly funded trials tended to have more discrepancies in reporting, which may reflect the resources typically available to large, privately funded trials or the relative ease of reporting in smaller trials with fewer overall AEs. These results highlight the need to facilitate clear and consistent reporting in CHIS.
Strength and Limitations
This is the first study comparing CHIS AE reporting with trial registry data.
This study contributes to a sparse general literature on reporting discrepancies.
We provide recommendations for best practices to reduce the problems we identify.
Our data likely exhibit heterogeneity arising from our aggregating across studies of different infectious agents.
Only ClinicalTrials.gov was evaluated, and it is possible that trials that would have met inclusion criteria are registered in other databases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [203132] and [221719] and 1Day Sooner. The funders had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The Trust and Confidence research program at the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford is supported by an award from the Moh Foundation. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [203132] and [221719] and 1Day Sooner. The funders had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
The Trust and Confidence research program at the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford is supported by an award from the Moh Foundation.
For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
COI: All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data Availability
All data and analyses performed are publicly available at https://github.com/1DaySooner/CTgovSystematicReview
