Participation of Lower and Upper Middle–Income Countries in Oncology Clinical Trials Led by High-Income Countries

Abstract

ImportanceMany randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle–income countries (LMICs) and upper middle–income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research.ObjectiveTo describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresA bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC).ResultsAmong the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study.

The disparities in clinical trials addressing urologic conditions among lower-income countries

“…A prior systematic review that has evaluated the challenges to conducting clinical trials in LMICs has cited access to financial resources as the most common barrier (7). The monthly cost of conducting an oncologic clinical trials has often been appraised to be greater that the annual gross national income per capita of LMICs (14). For clinical trials conducted in LMICs with industry sponsors, the eventual approved treatment may not be financially accessible or offered within the LMIC populations that contributed to the trial study (15).…”

Highlights from ecancer Choosing Wisely Nepal 2022: critical appraisal skills for evidence-based practice, 24th–25th September 2022, Kathmandu, Nepal

“…He stressed the fact that progression free survival was not a valid surrogate for survival [ 12 ] or quality of life [ 13 ]. He also pointed out publication bias in leading oncology journals against authors from LMICs [ 14 ]. He showed evidence that cancers of ‘poverty’, i.e., those cancers occurring in LMICs, are underrepresented in clinical trials globally (e.g.…”

An analysis of the African cancer research ecosystem: tackling disparities

“…20 However, there are no systems in place to ensure that this enduring access to beneficial treatments is granted to study participants in LMICs. 18 …”