Principal Features of Industry-Funded Trials that Posted Informed Consent Forms on ClinicalTrials.gov: a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Abstract

We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as 'completed' (n = 408) or 'terminated' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as 'collaborator' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the 'active, not recruiting' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as 'sponsors' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as 'collaborators'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.