Inadequate Dissemination of Phase I Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Open Access
- 17 February 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 6 (2), e1000034
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000034
Abstract
Drug development is ideally a logical sequence in which information from small early studies (Phase I) is subsequently used to inform and plan larger, more definitive studies (Phases II–IV). Phase I trials are unique because they generally provide the first evaluation of new drugs in humans. The conduct and dissemination of Phase I trials have not previously been empirically evaluated. Our objective was to describe the initiation, completion, and publication of Phase I trials in comparison with Phase II–IV trials. We reviewed a cohort of all protocols approved by a sample of ethics committees in France from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994. The comparison of 140 Phase I trials with 304 Phase II–IV trials, showed that Phase I studies were more likely to be initiated (133/140 [95%] versus 269/304 [88%]), more likely to be completed (127/133 [95%] versus 218/269 [81%]), and more likely to produce confirmatory results (71/83 [86%] versus 125/175 [71%]) than Phase II–IV trials. Publication was less frequent for Phase I studies (21/127 [17%] versus 93/218 [43%]), even if only accounting for studies providing confirmatory results (18/71 [25%] versus 79/125 [63%]). The initiation, completion, and publications of Phase I trials are different from those of other studies. Moreover, the results of these trials should be published in order to ensure the integrity of the overall body of scientific knowledge, and ultimately the safety of future trial participants and patients.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- A personal perspective on the Royal Statistical Society report of the working party on statistical issues in first‐in‐man studiesPharmaceutical Statistics, 2007
- Free access to medical information: A moral right?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006
- Drug discovery in jeopardyJCI Insight, 2006
- Phase I clinical trials: a call for papersThe Lancet, 2006
- Further lessons from the TGN1412 tragedyBMJ, 2006
- After the London tragedy, is it still possible to consider Phase I is safe?British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2006
- Clinical Trial Registration: The Differing Views of Industry, the WHO, and the Ottawa GroupPLoS Medicine, 2005
- Presentation and subsequent publication rates of phase I oncology clinical trialsCancer, 2005
- Individual Level Injection History: A Lack of Association with HIV Incidence in Rural ZimbabwePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,2004