MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Hawkins C. Gay, MD, MPH
Resident Physician, Internal Medicine
Feinberg School of Medicine
Northwestern University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The National Academy of Medicine and other leading institutions have highlighted clinical trial data sharing as an important initiative for enhancing trust in the clinical research enterprise. More recently, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stipulated that manuscripts published in their journals must clearly state plans for data sharing in the trial’s registration, and the National Institutes of Health now requires a data sharing plan as part of new grant applications. Many clinical trialists rightly debate the costs and time required to curate their data into a format that is usable by third part data analysts. Similarly, there has been debate about the most efficient platforms from which to distribute this data, and different models exist, including governmental (NIH BioLINCC), commercial (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com), and academic (Yale Open Access Data Project [YODA]) platforms.
Our study sought to explore these questions by conducting a reproduction analysis of the Thermocool Smarttouch Catheter for Treatment of Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (SMART-AF) trial (NCT01385202), which is the only cardiovascular clinical trial available through the YODA platform. Reproduction analyses represent a fundamental approach for and outcome from data sharing but are uncommonly performed even though results change more than one-quarter of the time in reproduction analyses. SMART-AF was a multicenter, single-arm trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of an irrigated, contact force-sensing catheter for ablation of drug refractory, symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 172 participants recruited from 21 sites between June 2011 and December 2011.
The time from our initial proposal submission to YODA and the final analysis completion was 11 months. Freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months post-procedure was similar compared with the primary study report (74.0%; 95% CI, 66.0-82.0 vs 76.4%; 95% CI, 68.7-84.1). The reproduction analysis success rate was higher than the primary study report (65.8%; 95% CI 56.5-74.2 vs 75.6%; 95% CI, 67.2-82.5). Adverse events were minimal and similar between the two analyses. We could not reproduce all analyses that were conducted in the primary study report; specifically, the analyses relating to contact force range and regression models. The primary reason for non-reproducibility was missing or un-locatable data in the analyzable dataset.
(more…)