‘Negative’ Clinical Trials in Rare Diseases and Beyond: Reclassification and Potential Solutions

References

• Ragni MV, Moore CG, Bias Vet al.Challenges of rare disease research: limited patients and competing priorities. Haemophilia18(3), e192–e194 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeWard SJ, Wilson A, Bausell H, Volz AS, Mooney K. Practical aspects of recruitment and retention in clinical trials of rare genetic diseases: the phenylketonuria (PKU) experience. J. Genet. Couns.23(1), 20–28 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration. Rare Diseases: Common Issues in Drug Development: Guidance for Industry. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM629579.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moliner AM, Waligora J. The European Union policy in the field of rare diseases. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol.1031, 561–587 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter T, Nestler-Parr S, Babela Ret al.Rare disease terminology and definitions – a systematic global review: report of the ISPOR rare disease special interest group. Value Health18(6), 906–914 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan G. Rare diseases: a common problem. J. Rare Dis. Diag. Ther.1(15), 1–3 (2015).
   Google Scholar
• Babac A, Litzkendorf S, Schmidt Ket al.Shaping an effective health information website on rare diseases using a group decision-making tool: inclusion of the perspectives of patients, their family members, and physicians. Interact. J. Med. Res.6(2), e23 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luisetti M, Campo I, Scabini Ret al.The problems of clinical trials and registries in rare diseases. Respir. Med.104, S42–S44 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW. Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J. Child Neurol.28(9), 1142–1150 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA288(3), 358–362 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Stone GW. The primary outcome fails – what next? N. Engl. J. Med.375(9), 861–870 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerth van Wijk R. Positive and negative AIT trials: what makes the difference? Allergo J. Int.27(6), 167–172 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Unger JM, Barlow WE, Ramsey SD, LeBlanc M, Blanke CD, Hershman DL. The scientific impact of positive and negative Phase III cancer clinical trials. JAMA Oncol.2(7), 875–881 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond ‘p < 0.05’. Am. Stat.73(Suppl. 1), 1–19 (2019).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedard PL, Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Statistical power of negative randomized controlled trials presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology annual meetings. J. Clin. Oncol.25(23), 3482–3487 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody BA, Ashton CM, Liu D, Xiong Y, Yao X, Wray NP. Are surgical trials with negative results being interpreted correctly? J. Am. Coll. Surg.216(1), 158–166 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KC, Kalliainen LK, Spilson SV, Walters MR, Kim HM. The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: an analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.109(1), 1–6 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimick JB, Diener-West M, Lipsett PA. Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or error? Arch. Surg.136(7), 796–800 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maxwell C. Clinical trials, reviews, and the Journal of Negative Results. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.11(1), 15–18 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos-Lozano A, Villamandos García D, Sanchis-Gomar Fet al.Niemann-Pick disease treatment: a systematic review of clinical trials. Ann. Transl. Med.3(22), 360–360 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta C, Gao P, Bhatt DL, Harrington RA, Skerjanec S, Ware JH. Optimizing trial design. Circulation119(4), 597–605 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whicher D, Philbin S, Aronson N. An overview of the impact of rare disease characteristics on research methodology. Orphanet. J. Rare Dis.13(1), 14 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O’Keefe K, Kesselheim AS. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. Br. Med. J.349, g6802 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees CA, Pica N, Monuteaux MC, Bourgeois FT. Noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med.16(11), e1002966 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald CM, Henricson EK, Abresch RTet al.The 6-minute walk test and other endpoints in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: longitudinal natural history observations over 48 weeks from a multicenter study. Muscle Nerve48(3), 343–356 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henricson E, Abresch R, Han JJet al.The 6-minute walk test and person-reported outcomes in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and typically developing controls: longitudinal comparisons and clinically-meaningful changes over one year. PLoS Curr.5 ecurrents.md.9e17658b17007eb17679fcd17656f723089f723079e723006 (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Simonneau G, Rubin LJ, Galie Net al.Addition of sildenafil to long-term intravenous epoprestenol therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Ann. Intern. Med.149(8), 521–530 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arteaga D, Donnelly T, Crum Ket al.Assessing physical activity using accelerometers in youth with duchenne muscular dystrophy. J. Neuromuscul. Dis.7, 331–342 (2020).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alfano LN, Charleston JS, Connolly AMet al.Long-term treatment with eteplirsen in nonambulatory patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Medicine (Baltimore)98(26), e15858 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallinkcrodt Pharmaceuticals Inc. Clinical update on intrathecal VTS-270 for the treatment of Niemann-Pick disease. https://mallinckrodt.gcs-web.com/static-files/e0712994-a013-4658-b8be-0a3bc4da0c5b
   Google Scholar
• Cortina-Borja M, Te Vruchte D, Mengel Eet al.Annual severity increment score as a tool for stratifying patients with Niemann-Pick disease type C and for recruitment to clinical trials. Orphanet. J. Rare Dis.13(1), 143–143 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hastings C, Vieira C, Liu Bet al.Expanded access with intravenous hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin to treat children and young adults with Niemann-Pick disease type C1: a case report analysis. Orphanet. J. Rare Dis.14(1), 228 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallinkcrodt Pharmaceuticals Inc. Message from Mallinckrodt concerning Adrabetadex transition. https://parseghianfund.nd.edu/2020/07/16/message-from-mallinckrodt-concerning-adrabetadex-transition/
   Google Scholar
• Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle Met al.Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol. Genet. Metab.96(1), 20–26 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempf L, Goldsmith JC, Temple R. Challenges of developing and conducting clinical trials in rare disorders. Am. J. Med. Genet. A176(4), 773–783 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke CA, Dekker E, Lynch Pet al.Eflornithine plus Sulindac for prevention of progression in familial adenomatous polyposis. N. Engl. J. Med.383(11), 1028–1039 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaguer F, Stoffel E, Burke Cet al.Combination of sulindac and eflornithine delays the need for lower gastrointestinal surgery in FAP patients: post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. ( manuscript submitted).
   Google Scholar
• Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol.4(10), 1529–1541 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ115/pdf/PLAW-105publ115.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McCray AT. Better access to information about clinical trials. Ann. Intern. Med.133(8), 609–614 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CDet al.Clinical trial registration – looking back and moving ahead. N. Engl. J. Med.356(26), 2734–2736 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tse T, Williams RJ, Zarin DA. Reporting “basic results” in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest136(1), 295–303 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarin DA, Tse T, Sheehan J. The proposed rule for U.S. clinical trial registration and results submission. N. Engl. J. Med.372(2), 174–180 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Carr S. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov – the final rule. N. Engl. J. Med.375(20), 1998–2004 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Commission Guideline – Guidance on posting and publication of result-related information on clinical trials in relation to the implementation of Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012XC1006(01)&qid=1611506406116&from=EN
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA310(20), 2191–2194 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW. Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials17(1), 473 (2016).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mlinaric A, Horvat M, Supak Smolcic V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb).27(3), 030201 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes A, Hunter J. Why is publication of negative clinical trial data important? Br. J. Pharmacol.167(7), 1395–1397 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygaard I. The importance of publishing trials with negative results. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.216(6), 541–542 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintraub PG. The importance of publishing negative results. J. Insect Sci.16(1), 109 (2016).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar