Background: To improve reporting transparency and research integrity, some journals have begun publishing study protocols and statistical analysis plans alongside trial publications. We sought to assess the overall availability and characteristics of protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomized clinical trials published in the top five (by impact factor) general medicine journals. Methods: All randomized clinical trials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM in 2016 were identified. For each randomized clinical trial, we searched for protocols and statistical analysis plans on journal websites (including supplementary material) and in the article, for example, a referenced publication or link to trial or institutional website. Characteristics of randomized clinical trials were extracted from the publication and clinical trial registry. A detailed assessment of protocols and statistical analysis plans was conducted in a 20% random sample of randomized clinical trials. Results: Protocols were available for 299 (82%) trials, ranging from 50% in BMJ to >95% in NEJM and JAMA. Statistical analysis plans were available for 182 (50%) trials and varied from <10% for Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, and Lancet to 92% for NEJM. Of the 76 randomized clinical trials in the 20% random sample, 63 (83%) had a protocol but less than half (31; 44%) included an a priori (dated prior to patient enrollment) version of the protocol. Statistical analysis plans were available for 35 (46%) trials, and only 5 (7%) included an a priori version. Conclusion: Protocols and statistical analysis plans are publicly available for the majority of trials. However, the a priori versions of these documents are only available for a minority of trials. More attention must be paid to ensuring the public availability of a priori versions.

No abstract

BackgroundParticipants are recruited into clinical trials under the assumption that the research will contribute to medical knowledge. Therefore, non-publication trials—and, more recently, lack of data sharing—are widely considered to violate the trust of trial participants. Existing practices regarding patient consent to publication and data sharing have not been evaluated. Analyzing informed consent forms (ICFs), we studied what trial participants were told regarding investigators’ intention to contribute to medical knowledge, publish trial results, and share de-identified trial data.MethodsWe obtained 98 ICFs of industry-funded pre-marketing trials for all (17) antibiotics approved by the European Medicines Agency and 46 ICFs of publicly funded trials from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) data repository. Three authors independently reviewed ICFs to identify and extract what was stated or implied regarding: (1) publication of results; (2) sharing de-identified data; (3) data ownership; (4) confidentiality of identifiable data; and (5) whether the trial will produce knowledge that offers public benefit. Consensus was obtained from the two reviewers with the greatest overall agreement on all five measures. Disagreements were resolved through discussion among all authors.ResultsFour (3%) trials indicated a commitment to publish trial results; 140 (97%) did not commit to publishing trial results; six (4%) indicated a commitment to share de-identified data with third party researchers. Commitments to share were more common in publicly funded trials than industry-funded trials (7% vs 3%). A total of 103 (72%) ICFs indicated the trials will or may produce knowledge that offers public benefits, while 131 (91%) ICFs left unstated who “owned” trial data; of those with statements, the sponsor always claimed ownership. Patient confidentiality was guaranteed in 137 (95%) trials.ConclusionsOur results suggest that consent forms rarely disclose investigators’ intentions regarding the sharing of de-identified data or publication of trial results.

e15055 Background: There is immune evasion and resistance to checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and Tumor mutational burden (TMB) might help us predict response, but we have not yet validated biomarkers that can predict resistance. Mutations (mut) in STK11 can induce epigenetic changes that confer proliferative advantages to cancer cells and preliminary reports have suggested that they can confer resistance to CPI. We investigated the role of STK11 and KRAS mut as markers of poor response to CPI in patients (pts) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Clinical outcomes of 127 pts with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC who were tested for KRAS and STK11 mut and received CPI were evaluated for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). For statistical analysis log-rank tests were used to compare OS and PFS, chi-squared tests were used to compare 1-year survivals and proportions among different variables, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to report OS and PFS. Results: Of the 127 pts: 31 had STK11 mut, 14 had STK11+KRAS mut (SKM group), and 10 pts were in the SKMP group (STK11+KRAS mut+PD-L1 (-)). Median age was 65y (27-88y). Males were 54% of the total and 30 pts (24%) were Hispanic (H). STK11 mut patients had an inferior PFS and OS as shown in table. Pts in SKM and SKMP groups had worse outcomes; however, not all the P values were significant. The difference in OS and 1-year OS were very impressive and significant when compared between the SKMP group (4m and 30%) and the wild type group (15m and 73%). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes for H vs. non-H White pts. Conclusions: The presence of STK11 mut were associated with shorter OS/PFS in NSCLC pts treated with CPIs, proving its utility as a negative predictive marker. This can be enhanced combining STK11 and KRAS mut and possibly adding PD-L1 (-). These findings are consistent with recent studies that have reported STK11 mut as a genomic driver of primary resistance. Due to the small sample size further studies will be needed to validate these findings. [Table: see text]

Purpose This study aimed to develop a process to reduce waste through redistribution of short-dated medications in emergency drug boxes and assess associated cost avoidance. Methods Short-dated medication items (defined as those expiring within 4 months) from more than 200 emergency drug boxes located throughout a large academic medical center were collected, sorted, and counted during two 3-month time periods. Medications expiring within 2 weeks were discarded. Remaining short-dated medications were redistributed to satellite pharmacies and the emergency department based on historical utilization patterns. The counts and costs of redistributed medications were collected and totaled. Results were compared between study periods to assess differences in numbers of drugs redistributed and the associated cost avoidance. Results A total of 4,415 short-dated medication items were collected during the study periods. The medication items associated with the highest cost avoidance were epinephrine 1 mg/mL, 30-mL vial (cost avoidance of $25,764), phenylephrine 10 mg/mL, 1-mL vial (cost avoidance of $8,626), and naloxone 0.4 mg/mL, 1-mL vial (cost avoidance of $5,382). The estimated total annualized cost avoidance was $104,357 for the first period and $144,674 for the second period. Of the 16 unique medications stocked in emergency drug boxes, 12 were in short supply at the institution at the time of the project, and about 67% of the redistributed items were subject to national drug shortages. Conclusion A process that facilitates appropriate redistribution of short-dated emergency drug box medications can reduce medication waste and lead to substantial cost avoidance.