Search

This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis aimed to demonstrate the disparities in positive results and dissemination patterns of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in global immuno-oncology (IO). Phase II–IV RCTs with results reported by article publications registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007–2018 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer, cancer vaccines, and immune modulators were included. Twenty-eight percent of trials were positive (72 of 258), most of which were pharma-sponsored and focused on ICI and multiple IO therapies in lung cancer, melanoma, and multiple cancer types. The recent period of trial start year, upfront registration, large sample size, high strictness score on corticosteroid/infection-related criteria, and survival endpoints were associated with positive results. Trials from Mainland China had a faster publication timeline of positive results but lacked study diversity or full reporting of negative results compared with US and multinational trials. Compared with phase II trials, phase III–IV trials had a higher average proportion of positive results (28.9% vs. 22.2%) and a more stable change over the past decade (23.65% vs. 49.24%). Positive trials yielded more secondary manuscripts (10 vs. 4), a shorter publication process of approximately two years (P < 0.001), and a superiority in the dissemination of journals with an h-index >90 (P < 0.001) compared with negative trials. Disparities in positive result dissemination are widespread in IO RCTs and affected by trial features. We proposed improvements in upfront registration, procedural integrity, and adequate inclusion of rival trials reporting negative results within the earlier two years in future reviews. Immuno-oncology (IO) is a novel treatment modality utilizing the natural ability of body's immune system to fight against cancer. The acknowledged standard method to confer the best medical evidence for showing the efficacy of a new intervention is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the publication of trial results via journal articles usually modifies medical decisions. A trial labeled negative means that the pre-specified goal was not met, but it deserves more attention rather than a simple interpretation of scientific failure. Previous studies on oncology trials indicated that negative and positive trials have different patterns of result publication and varied trial features. Although IO-related RCTs obtain a continuously increasing number, the extent and tendencies (positive or negative) of their results have not been assessed. To conduct a timely summary and a comprehensive analysis focusing on the publication details and its relationship with the properties of IO trials, we included phase II–IV IO RCTs with results reported by article publications registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007–2018. We found that disparities in positive results and publication are widespread in IO RCTs and severely affected by IO category, cancer type, sponsorship, trial phase, and geographic origin. Positive trials had a significantly shorter publication timeline of approximately two years, more secondary manuscripts, and a superiority in high-quality publications over negative trials. We propose that investigators should complete registration before trial launch, improve procedural integrity, and allow an adequate inclusion of rival trials reporting negative results within the earlier two years in future IO-related reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This cross‐sectional and longitudinal descriptive analysis aimed to track the evolving landscape of global immuno‐oncology (IO) trials and provide insight into the resolution of IO‐related controversies. Clinical trials (n = 4510) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007 to 2019 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer (ACT), cancer vaccines and immune modulators were included. Most of IO trials are Phase 2 and focus on ICIs and multiple IO therapies. The United States leads global IO research, with stable growth and the best methodological quality. Mainland China ranks first in the number of ACT trials but has the lowest article publication rate (6.2%). A multiple‐arm comparative design is often adopted in multiple IO therapies trials (44.0%). Trials studying ICIs and multiple IO therapies are likely to use early registration (80.0% and 86.6%) and stringent corticosteroid‐/infection‐related criteria. Hospitals have provided the most extensive and strongest support for all IO categories. Big pharma prefers to fund Phase 3‐4 ICI trials (6.98%), while small pharma has a wider sponsorship favoring Phase 1‐2 trials. The "partial‐use‐of‐corticosteroids" strategy is generally well accepted in ICI trials with a definitive trend (32.5%; P <.001) but is associated with the poor dissemination of results (P ≤.020), while the complete disclosure and standardization of dose/timing limits are still lacking. Disparities in design features and dissemination of results are widespread in IO trials and are modulated by IO category, cancer type and sponsor. We propose policy reforms to redefine the timely publication of IO trials and standardize the resolution of corticosteroid‐/infection‐related issues. What's new? In recent decades, immunotherapy has emerged and advanced to become a key part of cancer‐fighting strategies. The rapid growth of immuno‐oncology, however, has been accompanied by controversy in suitable interventions and trial design. In this cross‐sectional and longitudinal analysis, disparities in design were found to be common in immuno‐oncology trials, with differences influenced by factors such as cancer type and trial sponsor. Trials with strict limitations on corticosteroid use had significantly higher publications rates than trials permitting partial corticosteroid administration. The data further suggest that timely publication of immuno‐oncology trials is the third year after trial completion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The invasive alien species may lead to great environmental and economic crisis due to its strong capability of occupying the biological niche of native species and altering the ecosystem of the invaded area. However, its potential to serve as the vectors of some specific zoonotic pathogens, especially parasites, has been neglected. Thus, the damage that it may cause has been hugely underestimated in this aspect, which is actually an important public health problem. This paper aims to discuss the current status of zoonotic parasites carried by invasive alien species in China., Main Body: This review summarizes the reported zoonotic parasites carried by invasive alien species in China based on the Database of Invasive Alien Species in China. We summarize their prevalence, threat to human health, related reported cases, and the roles of invasive alien species in the life cycle of these parasites, and the invasion history of some invasive alien species. Furthermore, we sum up the current state of prevention and control of invasive alien species in China, and discuss about the urgency and several feasible strategies for the prevention and control of these zoonoses under the background of booming international communications and inevitable globalization., Conclusions: Information of the zoonotic parasites carried by invasive alien species neither in China or worldwide, especially related case reports, is limited due to a long-time neglection and lack of monitoring. The underestimation of their damage requires more attention to the monitoring and control and compulsory measures should be taken to control the invasive alien species carrying zoonotic parasites.