Open AccessPortfolio of Clinical Research in Adult Cardiovascular Disease as Reflected in ClinicalTrials.gov
Author(s) -
Alexander Karen P.,
Kong David F.,
Starr Aijing Z.,
Kramer Judith,
Chiswell Karen,
Tasneem Asba,
Califf Robert M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of the american heart association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.494
H-Index - 85
ISSN - 2047-9980
DOI - 10.1161/jaha.113.000009
Subject(s) - medicine , clinical trial , psychological intervention , disease , randomized controlled trial , surrogate endpoint , clinical endpoint , medline , physical therapy , intensive care medicine , law , psychiatry , political science
Background Cardiovascular medicine is widely regarded as a vanguard for evidence‐based drug and technology development. Our goal was to describe the cardiovascular clinical research portfolio from ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods and Results We identified 40 970 clinical research studies registered between 2007 and 2010 in which patients received diagnostic, therapeutic, or other interventions per protocol. By annotating 18 491 descriptors from the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Heading thesaurus and 1220 free‐text terms to select those relevant to cardiovascular disease, we identified studies that related to the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of diseases of the heart and peripheral arteries in adults (n=2325 [66%] included from review of 3503 potential studies). The study intervention involved a drug in 44.6%, a device or procedure in 39.3%, behavioral intervention in 8.1%, and biological or genetic interventions in 3.0% of the trials. More than half of the trials were postmarket approval (phase 4, 25.6%) or not part of drug development (no phase, 34.5%). Nearly half of all studies (46.3%) anticipated enrolling 100 patients or fewer. The majority of studies assessed biomarkers or surrogate outcomes, with just 31.8% reporting a clinical event as a primary outcome. Conclusions Cardiovascular studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov span a range of study designs. Data have limited verification or standardization and require manual processes to describe and categorize studies. The preponderance of small and late‐phase studies raises questions regarding the strength of evidence likely to be generated by the current portfolio and the potential efficiency to be gained by more research consolidation.