Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Stop talking and start making it happen
For more than a decade, clinical trialists and
their sponsors have been saying that they want all controlled clinical
trials tagged and listed somewhere while they are in
progress The compelling arguments that started this debate 10 years ago remain
the same:
3 4
The international research effort is
chaotic. It is impossible to find out, even with inside knowledge, who
is studying what. This means that patients and their doctors don't know
about trials they could take part in, researchers don't know if someone
has already started a trial they want to do, funding bodies and
governments can't easily set research strategies (because they don't
know what's going on), and research that's never published disappears
without a trace.
All this amounts to duplication of effort and large biases in the
information doctors use to treat patients. These biases are not just
inconvenient, they cost lives. The "disappearance" of unpublished
data on the dangers of prophylactic antiarrythmic drugs in people with
heart attack contributed to tens of thousands of avoidable
deaths.5 There is a growing consensus, voiced at this
meeting, that failure to register and report controlled clinical trials
somewhere public is a form of research misconduct.
To be fair, local initiatives exist in some member states,
notably the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany. But the European effort adds up to little more than a proliferation of national
registers, many of which are confined to trials of new drugs and closed
to everyone but the national regulatory body for medicines. Information
about ongoing clinical trials remains inaccessible to the people who
need it most. Why?
The meeting talked about three major challenges: firstly, money.
Setting up and maintaining a public register of trial activity is
expensive. A heavyweight bid for funding from the European Commission
failed unexpectedly in February this year, leaving existing initiatives
demoralised, struggling, and dependent on a mixture of private and
public finance. The web based "register of registers" run by
Current Controlled Trials is simple, searchable, publicly accessible,
and free to users. It contains 24 registers of trials from across the
world and nearly 14 000 trials, many of which now have international
standard randomised controlled trial numbers. This unique identifier
helps eliminate double registering and makes it easy to trace the
lifecycle of a trial from protocol to publication. Unfortunately,
the European Union's decision not to support public registration until
it is required by law means that to offer free access to users the
company now has to charge trial sponsors for an international standard
randomised controlled trial number. Worse, there are no registers from
mainland Europe on the "register of registers."
A publicly funded European database is under development. But it will
be confined to trials of drugs, and completely closed. Trialists and
sponsors will have access, but only to their own entry. The meeting
decided that working with controlled-trials.com was the option most
likely to succeed.
The second challenge is how to convince the drug industry to be more
open about their ongoing trials. Glaxo Wellcome made a commitment to
trial registration in 1998, but the rest of the industry has not
followed Glaxo's lead.6
Thirdly, how do you persuade researchers to register their controlled
trials? In an ideal world people would declare their trials for the
greater good, to help with recruitment, and to make their work more
visible. In reality, a few extra forms on top of the mountain of paper
work already generated by a trial are often too much. Some countries,
including the United States, use the law. The Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act 1997 says that all trials must be
registered, but only if they are testing new treatments for serious or
life threatening diseases.7 The commercial sector
interprets this as AIDS or cancer trials, which leaves big holes in
clinicaltrials.gov and other US
registers.8
Title (including acronym) Disease Inclusion criteria for patients Interventions Contact details for the principle investigator Source of funding Name of trial sponsor
preferably on an international register that's simple to use,
searchable, and free to anyone who wants to know who is studying what
and where. No one doubts that registering ongoing controlled trials is a good idea. The Americans have made an excellent start with their
publicly funded register (www.clinicaltrials.gov).1 And the United Kingdom's Medical Research Council and the NHS Research and
Development Programme have made important progress through a
meta-register of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com), established by Current Controlled Trials, a publisher. Why has it not
happened more widely in Europe? Last year the European Science
Foundation, an umbrella organisation, advised all its member
organisations to register controlled trials through
www.controlled-trials.com and to assign each of them a unique
identifier
an international standard randomised controlled trial
number (ISRCTN).2 Last month, the foundation hosted a
meeting in Frankfurt to review progress, and more importantly, to urge
members to stop talking and do something.
Core items on www.controlled-trials.com
The European Science Foundation meeting decided instead to push for
registration to be linked to funding as it already is for many
controlled trials in the United Kingdom, where the MRC releases funds
only for trials registered on controlled-trials.com and identified by
an international standard randomised controlled trial number. The idea
is that funding agencies across Europe, led by members of the European
Science Foundation, insist that all trials are registered
somewhere
probably on a national register
then ensure that core items
are also placed on controlled-trials.com where everyone can see them (box).
The foundation will review progress in six months and challenge the
European Commission to follow through its repeated calls for trials to
be registered. In the meantime, what should the rest of us be doing?
Lobbying politicians. It worked in the United States where a sustained
campaign by patient groups led to a change in the law. Patient groups
should be urging European politicians to open up the planned European
database or pay for another more accessible initiative. Ethics
committees should apply pressure to researchers at the ethical review
stage. Finally, editors of medical journals should ask authors to
register their trials and commit to publishing a trial's international
standard randomised controlled trial number alongside the published paper.
BMJ, (atonks{at}bmj.com)
Alison Tonks
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
| 1. |
Charatan F.
US launches new clinical trials database.
BMJ
2000;
320:
668 |
| 2. | European Science Foundation. Controlled clinical trials. European Science Foundation policy briefing. ESF 2001. Strasbourg, France. |
| 3. |
Horton R, Smith R.
Time to register randomised trials.
BMJ
1999;
319:
865-866 |
| 4. |
Tonks A.
Registering clinical trials.
BMJ
1999;
319:
1565-1568 |
| 5. |
Yamey G.
Scientists who do not publish their results are "unethical."
BMJ
1999;
319:
939 |
| 6. |
Sykes R.
Being a modern pharmaceutical company.
BMJ
1998;
317:
1172 |
| 7. | Section 113. Information programme on clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Public Law 105-15. http://lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/clin/113.html (accessed 29 Nov 2002). |
| 8. |
Manheimer E, Anderson D.
Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility.
BMJ
2002;
325:
528-531 |
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+