Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials

Authors: O’Mareen Spence, Richie Onwuchekwa Uba, Seongbin Shin, Peter Doshi

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Participants 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Four (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.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that consent forms rarely disclose investigators’ intentions regarding the sharing of de-identified data or publication of trial results.
Literature
2.
go back to reference DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–4.CrossRefPubMed DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Committee on Strategies for Responsible Sharing of Clinical Trial Data, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015. Committee on Strategies for Responsible Sharing of Clinical Trial Data, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015.
5.
go back to reference Mancini J, Genève J, Dalenc F, Genre D, Monnier A, Kerbrat P, et al. Decision-making and breast cancer clinical trials: how experience challenges attitudes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:684–94.CrossRefPubMed Mancini J, Genève J, Dalenc F, Genre D, Monnier A, Kerbrat P, et al. Decision-making and breast cancer clinical trials: how experience challenges attitudes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:684–94.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1783–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1783–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Giffen CA, Carroll LE, Adams JT, Brennan SP, Coady SA, Wagner EL. Providing contemporary access to historical biospecimen collections: development of the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biopreserv Biobank. 2015;13:271–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Giffen CA, Carroll LE, Adams JT, Brennan SP, Coady SA, Wagner EL. Providing contemporary access to historical biospecimen collections: development of the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biopreserv Biobank. 2015;13:271–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference National Commission For The Protection of Human Subjects. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1978. https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf. National Commission For The Protection of Human Subjects. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1978. https://​videocast.​nih.​gov/​pdf/​ohrp_​belmont_​report.​pdf.
11.
go back to reference Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101–4.CrossRefPubMed Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101–4.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7373.CrossRefPubMed Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7373.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ross JS, Tse T, Zarin DA, Xu H, Zhou L, Krumholz HM. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:d7292.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ross JS, Tse T, Zarin DA, Xu H, Zhou L, Krumholz HM. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:d7292.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e217. discussion e217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e217. discussion e217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Evoniuk G, Mansi B, DeCastro B, Sykes J. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies. BMJ. 2017;357:j1726.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Evoniuk G, Mansi B, DeCastro B, Sykes J. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies. BMJ. 2017;357:j1726.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Doshi P. Data too important to share: do those who control the data control the message? BMJ. 2016;352:i1027.CrossRefPubMed Doshi P. Data too important to share: do those who control the data control the message? BMJ. 2016;352:i1027.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–4.PubMedCentral World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–4.PubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Grady C, Touloumi G, Walker AS, Smolskis M, Sharma S, Babiker AG, et al. A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Grady C, Touloumi G, Walker AS, Smolskis M, Sharma S, Babiker AG, et al. A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
21.
go back to reference Jones CW, Roberts BW, Platts-Mills TF. Patient perspectives on sharing deidentified trial data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:748–9.CrossRefPubMed Jones CW, Roberts BW, Platts-Mills TF. Patient perspectives on sharing deidentified trial data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:748–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials
Authors
O’Mareen Spence
Richie Onwuchekwa Uba
Seongbin Shin
Peter Doshi
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2651-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue