The impact of the 'Clinical Trials' directive on the cost and conduct of non-commercial cancer trials in the UK

Development of a risk-tailored approach and dashboard for efficient management and monitoring of investigator-initiated trials

BACKGROUND

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the academic setting have limited resources for clinical trial management and monitoring. Inefficient conduct of trials was identified as an important source of waste even in well-designed studies. Thoroughly identifying trial-specific risks to enable focussing of monitoring and management efforts on these critical areas during trial conduct may allow for the timely initiation of corrective action and to improve the efficiency of trial conduct. We developed a risk-tailored approach with an initial risk assessment of an individual trial that informs the compilation of monitoring and management procedures in a trial dashboard.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to identify risk indicators and trial monitoring approaches followed by a contextual analysis involving local, national and international stakeholders. Based on this work we developed a risk-tailored management approach with integrated monitoring for RCTs and including a visualizing trial dashboard. We piloted the approach and refined it in an iterative process based on feedback from stakeholders and performed formal user testing with investigators and staff of two clinical trials.

RESULTS

The developed risk assessment comprises four domains (patient safety and rights, overall trial management, intervention management, trial data). An accompanying manual provides rationales and detailed instructions for the risk assessment. We programmed two trial dashboards tailored to one medical and one surgical RCT to manage identified trial risks based on daily exports of accumulating trial data. We made the code for a generic dashboard available on GitHub that can be adapted to individual trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented trial management approach with integrated monitoring enables user-friendly, continuous checking of critical elements of trial conduct to support trial teams in the academic setting. Further work is needed in order to show effectiveness of the dashboard in terms of safe trial conduct and successful completion of clinical trials.

Revitalising cancer trials post-pandemic: time for reform

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant risk to the health of cancer patients, compromised standard cancer care and interrupted clinical cancer trials, prompting dramatic streamlining of services. From this health crisis has emerged the opportunity to carry forward an unexpected legacy of positive reforms to clinical cancer research, where conventionally convoluted approvals processes, inefficient trial design, procedures and data gathering could benefit from the lessons in rationalisation learned during the pandemic.

Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies

BACKGROUND

Trial monitoring is an important component of good clinical practice to ensure the safety and rights of study participants, confidentiality of personal information, and quality of data. However, the effectiveness of various existing monitoring approaches is unclear. Information to guide the choice of monitoring methods in clinical intervention studies may help trialists, support units, and monitors to effectively adjust their approaches to current knowledge and evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different monitoring strategies (including risk-based strategies and others) for clinical intervention studies examined in prospective comparative studies of monitoring interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase via Ovid for relevant published literature up to March 2021. We searched the online 'Studies within A Trial' (SWAT) repository, grey literature, and trial registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or non-randomized prospective, empirical evaluation studies of different monitoring strategies in one or more clinical intervention studies. We applied no restrictions for language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the evaluated monitoring methods, countries involved, study population, study setting, randomization method, and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. Our primary outcome was critical and major monitoring findings in prospective intervention studies. Monitoring findings were classified according to different error domains (e.g. major eligibility violations) and the primary outcome measure was a composite of these domains. Secondary outcomes were individual error domains, participant recruitment and follow-up, and resource use. If we identified more than one study for a comparison and outcome definitions were similar across identified studies, we quantitatively summarized effects in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Otherwise, we qualitatively summarized the results of eligible studies stratified by different comparisons of monitoring strategies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for different groups of comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight eligible studies, which we grouped into five comparisons. 1. Risk-based versus extensive on-site monitoring: based on two large studies, we found moderate certainty of evidence for the combined primary outcome of major or critical findings that risk-based monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. Although the risk ratio was close to 'no difference' (1.03 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.81 to 1.33, below 1.0 in favor of the risk-based strategy), the high imprecision in one study and the small number of eligible studies resulted in a wide CI of the summary estimate. Low certainty of evidence suggested that monitoring strategies with extensive on-site monitoring were associated with considerably higher resource use and costs (up to a factor of 3.4). Data on recruitment or retention of trial participants were not available. 2. Central monitoring with triggered on-site visits versus regular on-site visits: combining the results of two eligible studies yielded low certainty of evidence with a risk ratio of 1.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 6.55) in favor of triggered monitoring intervention. Data on recruitment, retention, and resource use were not available. 3. Central statistical monitoring and local monitoring performed by site staff with annual on-site visits versus central statistical monitoring and local monitoring only: based on one study, there was moderate certainty of evidence that a small number of major and critical findings were missed with the central monitoring approach without on-site visits: 3.8% of participants in the group without on-site visits and 6.4% in the group with on-site visits had a major or critical monitoring finding (odds ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.03). The absolute number of monitoring findings was very low, probably because defined major and critical findings were very study specific and central monitoring was present in both intervention groups. Very low certainty of evidence did not suggest a relevant effect on participant retention, and very low certainty evidence indicated an extra cost for on-site visits of USD 2,035,392. There were no data on recruitment. 4. Traditional 100% source data verification (SDV) versus targeted or remote SDV: the two studies assessing targeted and remote SDV reported findings only related to source documents. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, only a small proportion of remaining errors on overall data were identified using the targeted SDV process in the MONITORING study (absolute difference 1.47%, 95% CI 1.41% to 1.53%). Targeted SDV was effective in the verification of source documents, but increased the workload on data management. The other included study was a pilot study, which compared traditional on-site SDV versus remote SDV and found little difference in monitoring findings and the ability to locate data values despite marked differences in remote access in two clinical trial networks. There were no data on recruitment or retention. 5. Systematic on-site initiation visit versus on-site initiation visit upon request: very low certainty of evidence suggested no difference in retention and recruitment between the two approaches. There were no data on critical and major findings or on resource use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base is limited in terms of quantity and quality. Ideally, for each of the five identified comparisons, more prospective, comparative monitoring studies nested in clinical trials and measuring effects on all outcomes specified in this review are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. However, the results suggesting risk-based, targeted, and mainly central monitoring as an efficient strategy are promising. The development of reliable triggers for on-site visits is ongoing; different triggers might be used in different settings. More evidence on risk indicators that identify sites with problems or the prognostic value of triggers is needed to further optimize central monitoring strategies. In particular, approaches with an initial assessment of trial-specific risks that need to be closely monitored centrally during trial conduct with triggered on-site visits should be evaluated in future research.

Practices and Attitudes of Swiss Stakeholders Regarding Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Funding Acquisition and Cost Management

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are an essential method of evaluating health care interventions and a cornerstone for evidence-based health care. However, RCTs have become increasingly complex and costly, which is particularly challenging for independent investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs). IICTs have an essential role in clinical research, and it is important that efforts are made to ensure IICTs are adequately funded and are conducted cost-effectively.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this qualitative study, interviews were conducted in Switzerland between February and August 2020. The purposive sample comprised 48 stakeholders from 4 different groups: primary investigators (n = 27), funders and sponsors (n = 9), clinical trial support organizations (n = 6), and ethics committee members (n = 6).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Practices and attitudes of stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management were assessed using individual semistructured qualitative interviews. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

After interviews with 48 IICT stakeholders (75% male presenting), these participants identified a systemic problem of IICTs being underfunded, which can lead to compromises being made regarding the quality and conduct of IICTs. Participants identified 2 overarching and interconnected groups of reasons why IICTs in Switzerland are regularly underfunded. First, it was reported that IICT budget estimations are often inaccurate because of poor planning and preparation, unforeseeable events, investigators intentionally underestimating budgets, and limited budget assessment and oversight. Second, with the exception of a specific IICT funding program by the Swiss National Science Foundation, it was reported that limited funding sources and unrealistic expectation of funders led to underlying challenges in getting IICTs fully funded. A number of measures that could help reduce the underfunding of IICTs were identified, including improving the support of investigators and IICTs, strengthening networking and guidance, harmonizing and simplifying bureaucracy, and increasing public funding of IICTs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights the inadequate expertise of Swiss stakeholders to correctly, systematically, and reproducibly calculate RCT budgets and the need for transparency on trial costs as well as training in budgeting practices. Limited financial resources for academic clinical research and issues regarding the professional planning and conduct of IICTs are persistent issues that many other countries also face.

From patent to patient: analysing access to innovative cancer drugs

Analysis of cancer drugs licensed through the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2000-2016 shows that the number of authorisations increased over that timeframe. The median number of licensed drugs each year rose from six for 2000-2008 to 13.5 for 2009-2016. Over 2000-2016, there were 64 drug authorisations for haematological, 15 for breast, and 12 for skin cancer, but none for oesophageal, brain, bladder, or uterine cancer. Only 6% of authorisations included a paediatric indication. The average time for a drug to progress from patent priority date to availability on the National Health Service (NHS) increased from 12.8 years for drugs first licensed in 2000-2008 to 14.0 years for those licensed in 2009-2016. There was evidence that the most innovative drugs were not being prioritised for EMA licensing and NICE approval.

Low-risk trials for children and pregnant women threatened by unnecessary strict regulations. Does the coming EU Clinical Trial Regulation offer a solution?

Investigator-initiated clinical trials are crucial for improving quality of care for children and pregnant women as they are often excluded from industry-initiated trials. However, trials have become increasingly time-consuming and costly since the EU Clinical Trial Directive entered into force in 2001. This directive made compliance with ICH-Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (ethical and quality standard for conducting human subject research) mandatory for all clinical trials, regardless of its risk-classification. By discussing two investigator-initiated, 'low-risk' drug trials, we aim to illustrate that compliance with all GCP requirements makes trials very laborious and expensive, while a clear rationale is missing. This discourages clinical researchers to start and carry out investigator-initiated research. However, the forthcoming EU Clinical Trial Regulation (No 536/2014) seems to provide a solution as it allows for less stringent rules for low-risk trials. We want to raise awareness for these developments in both the clinical research community and the European and national regulatory authorities. Implementation of this forthcoming Regulation regulatory policies should be done in such a way that investigator-initiated trials evaluating standard care interventions will become more feasible. This will allow us to obtain evidence on optimal and safe treatments, especially for groups that are underrepresented in medical research. What is Known • Investigator-initiated trials are indispensable for improving care for children and pregnant women as they are often excluded from industry-initiated trials • Trials have become increasingly time-consuming and costly because of mandatory compliance with ICH-GCP guidelines What is New • The forthcoming EU Clinical Trial Regulation allows less stringent rules for low-risk trials • The national legislator and regulatory authorities should recognize the importance of this opportunity and implement the Regulation in such a way that investigator-initiated trials will become more feasible.

Triggered or routine site monitoring visits for randomised controlled trials: results of TEMPER, a prospective, matched-pair study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In multi-site clinical trials, where trial data and conduct are scrutinised centrally with pre-specified triggers for visits to sites, targeted monitoring may be an efficient way to prioritise on-site monitoring. This approach is widely used in academic trials, but has never been formally evaluated.

METHODS

TEMPER assessed the ability of targeted monitoring, as used in three ongoing phase III randomised multi-site oncology trials, to distinguish sites at which higher and lower rates of protocol and/or Good Clinical Practice violations would be found during site visits. Using a prospective, matched-pair design, sites that had been prioritised for visits after having activated 'triggers' were matched with a control ('untriggered') site, which would not usually have been visited at that time. The paired sites were visited within 4 weeks of each other, and visit findings are recorded and categorised according to the seriousness of the deviation. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sites with ≥1 'Major' or 'Critical' finding not previously identified centrally. The study was powered to detect an absolute difference of ≥30% between triggered and untriggered visits. A sensitivity analysis, recommended by the study's blinded endpoint review committee, excluded findings related to re-consent. Additional analyses assessed the prognostic value of individual triggers and data from pre-visit questionnaires completed by site and trials unit staff.

RESULTS

In total, 42 matched pairs of visits took place between 2013 and 2016. In the primary analysis, 88.1% of triggered visits had ≥1 new Major/Critical finding, compared to 81.0% of untriggered visits, an absolute difference of 7.1% (95% confidence interval -8.3%, +22.5%; p = 0.365). When re-consent findings were excluded, these figures reduced to 85.7% versus 59.5%, (difference = 26.2%, 95% confidence interval 8.0%, 44.4%; p = 0.007). Individual triggers had modest prognostic value but knowledge of the trial-related activities carried out by site staff may be useful.

CONCLUSION

Triggered monitoring approaches, as used in these trials, were not sufficiently discriminatory. The rate of Major and Critical findings was higher than anticipated, but the majority related to consent and re-consent with no indication of systemic problems that would impact trial-wide safety issues or integrity of the results in any of the three trials. Sensitivity analyses suggest triggered monitoring may be of potential use, but needs improvement and investigation of further central monitoring triggers is warranted. TEMPER highlights the need to question and evaluate methods in trial conduct, and should inform further developments in this area.

Barriers for conducting clinical trials in developing countries- a systematic review

Background

Clinical trials for identification of efficient and effective new diagnostic and treatment modalities are needed to address disproportionately high burden of communicable (e.g., HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria) and non-communicable diseases (e.g., diabetes) in developing countries. However, gross under-representation in global clinical trial platforms contributes to sustained health inequity in these countries. We reviewed the literature on barriers facing clinical researchers in developing countries for conducting clinical trials in their countries.

Methods

Literature indexed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library were searched. Grey literature was also searched. Search key words included barriers, challenges, clinical trials and developing countries. Articles within the scope of this review were appraised by two reviewers.

Results

Ten studies, which are reported in 15 papers, were included in this review. Following critical review we identified five unifying themes for barriers. Barriers for conducting clinical trials included lack of financial and human capacity, ethical and regulatory system obstacles, lack of research environment, operational barriers and competing demands.

Conclusion and recommendation

There were substantial barriers at system, organization and individual level. We propose that to address this problem, instituting a system for wider implementation of local investigator-initiated trials is warranted. These trials are more applicable to local populations because they build on local healthcare knowledge. They are more demand-led, influence policy and responsive to a country’s needs because they are driven by a local or national agenda.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0748-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development in the number of clinical trial applications in Western Europe from 2007 to 2015: retrospective study of data from national competent authorities

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the development in the number of applications for authorisation of clinical trials of medicines (CTAs) submitted annually to national competent authorities in 10 Western European member states of the European Union from 2007 to 2015.

DESIGN

Registry study.

SETTING

Data from national competent authorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Germany, Italy, Spain, France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden. Inclusion criteria were Western European member states of the European Union, receiving more than 200 CTAs per year.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Summarised number of CTAs and distribution of CTAs by type of sponsor (commercial or non-commercial) and trial phase (I-IV). Average annual growth rates (AAGRs) based on linear regressions. Data were evaluated 2007-2011 and 2012-2015 to compare findings with the European Commission's statement of a 25% decrease in CTAs in the EU from 2007 to 2011.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2011, the summarised number of CTAs decreased significantly (AAGR -3.9% (p=0.02)), primarily due to a decrease in commercially sponsored CTAs. From 2012 to 2015, the change was insignificant (AAGR 2.6% (p=0.27)), however with a 10% increase from 2014 to 2015 after stagnation from 2012 to 2014. Overall, the number of CTAs and distribution by type of sponsor varied considerably between countries. No distinct trends were observed when evaluating CTAs by type of trial phase.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a significant decrease in the number of CTAs in Western Europe from 2007 to 2011 (AAGR -3.9%). This development is possibly attributable to several factors such as the European Clinical Trials Directive, national and local political decisions, and a potential global shift in clinical trial activity. From 2014 to 2015, the number of CTAs increased markedly (10%). However, it is yet too soon to determine if this constitutes a transient fluctuation or a new trend.

New clinical trials regulation in Spain: analysis of royal decree 1090/2015

The coming into force of Directive 2001/20/EC represented a step forward in harmonising clinical trial regulation in European countries, guaranteeing a uniform protection of subjects participating in clinical research across Europe. However, it led to a disproportionate increase in the bureaucratization, and thus, it became evident that procedures needed to be simplified without detriment to patient’s safety. Thus, Regulation 536/2014, that repealed Directive 2001/20/EC, with the aim of decreasing the growing bureaucratization and stimulating clinical research in Europe, established simplified procedures, such as regulating a common procedure for authorising trials in Europe, the institution of strict assessment timelines, or the definition of new concepts, such as “low-intervention clinical trial”. The legal form of a Regulation allowed the norm to be directly applied to Member States without the need for transposition. By means of the new Royal Decree, the national legislation is adapted to make the application of the regulation feasible and it allows the development of the aspects that the Regulation leaves to national legislation. Both documents seek to stimulate clinical research with medicinal products to foster knowledge, facilitate transparency, and reinforce subjects’ safety. This will surely be the case, but with this revision, we will look at the novelties and key aspects that are most relevant to investigators and we will analyse the consequences for all parties involved in clinical research.

Input analysis for two public consultations on the EU Clinical Trials Regulation

Background

The European Union’s (EU) Clinical Trials Directive was replaced by an EU-Regulation as of 2016. The policy revision process was subject to a formal impact assessment exercised by the European Commission (EC) from 2008 to 2014. Following the EU principles of Good Governance, deliberation with stakeholders was an integral part of this impact assessment and the policy formulation process. Hence, two public consultations (PCs) were held by the EC in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Various stakeholders contributed and submitted their written input to the EC. Though often cited in the further revision process, the input gathered in the PC was not communicated with full transparency and it is unclear how and to what extent the input has been processed and used in the policy formulation. The objective of this study was an analysis of submissions to both PCs in order to systematically present what topics have been discussed and which possible policy options have been raised by the stakeholders.

Methods

All written submissions publicly available were downloaded from the EC’s homepage and assessed for stakeholder characteristics. Thematic text analysis was applied to assess the full text of a random sample of 33% of these submissions.

Results

A total of 198 different stakeholders from the EU and the United States of America contributed to one or both of the two PCs. In total, 44 various themes have been addressed that could be clustered under 24 main themes, including the articulation of problems as well as possible policy solutions to face these problems.

Conclusion

The two PCs on the Clinical Trials Directive were highly appreciated by the various stakeholders and their input allowed an in-depth view on their particular interests. This input provided a rich source of information for all stakeholders in the field of clinical trials as well as to the EC’s impact assessment. Although the EC obviously gathered a large quantity of expert knowledge on practical implications of trials legislation by consulting stakeholders, it remained unclear how this input was used in the development of the new regulation. For the sake of transparency, it is recommended that in future PCs the EC uses better standardized methods for a more transparent analysis and presentation of results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0141-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing and implementing a Radiotherapy Research Activity Assessment Tool (RAAT): a prospective feasibility study

Aim

Cancer research in the National Health Service has increased by 10·5% in 3 years since the formation of the National Cancer Research networks in 2000. The initial enthusiasm from clinical staffs to embark on a project has to be balanced against the implications of resources, costs and other developments. There is no standardised method to assess the impact of research projects on clinical practice. The aim of this project was to develop and implement a Radiotherapy Research Activity Assessment Tool (RAAT) to assess the feasibility of newly proposed projects within clinical settings.

Methods and materials

A multi-step development method was used. The steps involved the principles of quality function deployment. The consecutive steps involved developing a user-friendly and replicable tool and would fit on one A4 page. The process involved multi-professionals and patients throughout the design process. The tool was preliminary tested on usability among eight stakeholders on a ten-point scale (1=poor; 10=very good). Percentage agreement was evaluated at 6 month post initial RAAT assessment scoring by the seven multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members.

Findings

The RAAT was developed in an e-form available in Microsoft Excel. The tool scored a mode of 6 for usability. Interrater reliability testing between the radiotherapy MDT resulted in 88% agreement. The RAAT seems to be feasible in clinical practice, and provide a framework to guide the decision-making process. The study calls for further testing of usability and review of long-term implications on all stakeholders.

The Good Clinical Practice guideline and its interpretation - perceptions of clinical trial teams in sub-Saharan Africa

OBJECTIVES

To explore the advantages and challenges of working with the Good Clinical Practice (GCP)-International Conference of Harmonization (ICH) E6 guideline and its interpretation from the perspective of clinical trial teams based in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We conducted 60 key informant interviews with clinical trial staff at different levels in clinical research centres in Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Senegal and thematically analysed the responses.

RESULTS

Clinical trial teams perceived working with ICH-GCP as highly advantageous and regarded ICH-GCP as applicable to their setting and efficiently applied. Only for informed consent did some clinical trial staff (one-third) perceive the guideline as insufficiently applicable. Specific challenges included meeting the requirements for written and individual consent, conditions for impartial witnesses for illiterates or legally acceptable representatives for children, guaranteeing voluntary participation and ensuring full understanding of the consent given. It was deemed important to have ICH-GCP compliance monitored by relevant ethics committees and regulatory authorities, without having guidelines applied overcautiously.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial teams in sub-Saharan Africa perceived GCP as a helpful guideline, despite having been developed by northern organisations and despite the high administrative burden of implementing it. To mitigate consent challenges, we suggest adapting GCP and making use of the flexibility it offers.

ODM2CDA and CDA2ODM: tools to convert documentation forms between EDC and EHR systems

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials apply standards approved by regulatory agencies for Electronic Data Capture (EDC). Operational Data Model (ODM) from Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) is commonly used. Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems for patient care predominantly apply HL7 standards, specifically Clinical Document Architecture (CDA). In recent years more and more patient data is processed in electronic form.

RESULTS

An open source reference implementation was designed and implemented to convert forms between ODM and CDA format. There are limitations of this conversion method due to different scope and design of ODM and CDA. Specifically, CDA has a multi-level hierarchical structure and CDA nodes can contain both XML values and XML attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated transformation of ODM files to CDA and vice versa is technically feasible in principle.

Frequency analysis of medical concepts in clinical trials and their coverage in MeSH and SNOMED-CT

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria (EC) of clinical trials play a key role in selecting appropriate study candidates and the validity of the outcome of a clinical trial. However, in most cases EC are provided in unstandardised ways such as free text, which raises significant challenges for machine-readability.

OBJECTIVES

To establish a list of most frequent medical concepts in clinical trials with semantic annotations. This concept list contributes to standardisation of EC and identifies relevant data items in electronic health records (EHRs) for clinical research. The coverage of the list in two major clinical vocabularies, MeSH and SNOMED-CT, will be assessed.

METHODS

Four hundred and twenty-five clinical trials conducted between 2000 and 2011 at a German university hospital were analysed. 6671 EC were manually annotated by a medical coder using Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs) provided by the Unified Medical Language System. Two physicians performed a semi-automatic CUI code revision. Concept frequency was analysed and clusters of concepts were manually identified.A binomial significance test was applied to quantify coverage differences of the most frequent concepts in MeSH and SNOMED-CT.

RESULTS

Based on manual medical coding of 425 clinical trials, 7588 concepts were identified, of which 5236 were distinct. A top 100 list containing 101 most frequent medical concepts was established. The concepts of this list cover 25 % of all concept occurrences in all analysed clinical trials. This list reveals six missing entries in SNOMED-CT, 12 in MeSH. The median of EC frequency per trial has increased throughout the trial years (2000 -2005: 8 EC/trial, 2011: 14 EC/trial).

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively few concepts cover one quarter of concept occurrences that represent EC in recent studies. Therefore, these concepts can serve as candidate data elements for integration into EHRs to optimise patient recruitment in clinical research.

Integrated data management for clinical studies: automatic transformation of data models with semantic annotations for principal investigators, data managers and statisticians

Design, execution and analysis of clinical studies involves several stakeholders with different professional backgrounds. Typically, principle investigators are familiar with standard office tools, data managers apply electronic data capture (EDC) systems and statisticians work with statistics software. Case report forms (CRFs) specify the data model of study subjects, evolve over time and consist of hundreds to thousands of data items per study. To avoid erroneous manual transformation work, a converting tool for different representations of study data models was designed. It can convert between office format, EDC and statistics format. In addition, it supports semantic annotations, which enable precise definitions for data items. A reference implementation is available as open source package ODMconverter at http://cran.r-project.org.

Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about growing barriers to cancer research. We explored the characteristics of and barriers to global clinical cancer research.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology International Affairs Committee invited 300 selected oncologists with research experience from 25 countries to complete a Web-based survey. Fisher's exact test was used to compare answers between participants from high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Barriers to clinical cancer research were ranked from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important). Mann-Whitney's nonparametric test was used to compare the ranks describing the importance of investigated obstacles.

RESULTS

Eighty oncologists responded, 41 from HICs and 39 from LMICs. Most responders were medical oncologists (62%) at academic hospitals (90%). Researchers from HICs were more involved with academic and industry-driven research than were researchers from LMICs. Significantly higher proportions of those who considered their ability to conduct academic research and industry-driven research over the past 5 years more difficult were from HICs (73% vs. 27% and 70% vs. 30%, respectively). Concerning academic clinical cancer research, a lack of funding was ranked the most important (score: 3.16) barrier, without significant differences observed between HICs and LMICs. Lack of time or competing priorities and procedures from competent authorities were the second most important barriers to conducting academic clinical research in HICs and LMICs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lack of funding, lack of time and competing priorities, and procedures from competent authorities might be the main global barriers to academic clinical cancer research.

A systematic review of on-site monitoring methods for health-care randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Monitoring the conduct of clinical trials is recommended by International Conference of Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) guidelines and is integral to trial quality assurance. On-site monitoring, that is, visiting trial sites, is one part of this process but little is known about the procedures that are performed in practice.

PURPOSE

To examine and summarise published on-site monitoring methods for health-care clinical trials, including evaluations of their benefits and costs to trials.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified all articles reporting the methods and practices of on-site monitoring of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Articles were categorised into (1) reports from research groups and organisations, (2) reports from individual RCTs, (3) randomised trials of on-site monitoring interventions, (4) cost simulations, or (5) surveys of trial staff and monitors. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the trials and groups reporting on-site monitoring (e.g., geographical origin, sponsor, and trial focus). Information from articles in categories (1)-(3) was summarised on the frequency and scope of site monitoring visits, monitoring team size and composition, activities during site visits, and reporting structures. Evaluations of the benefits and disadvantages of on-site monitoring were examined for all included articles.

RESULTS

In total, 57 articles were identified, comprising 21 articles about the on-site monitoring practices of 16 research groups, 30 articles from 26 RCTs, 1 on-site monitoring intervention RCT, 2 cost simulations, and 3 surveys. Publications in categories (1)-(3), mostly originated from the United States (33/52, 63%) or Europe (15/52, 29%), were predominantly describing non-commercial organisations or trials (45/52, 87%), with heart disease (9/26, 35%) or cancer (5/26, 19%) the commonest focus of individual RCTs. The frequency of visits ranged from every 6-8 weeks up to once every 3 years, with mostly all trial sites visited. The number of monitors visiting a site varied between 1 and 8. The most common on-site monitoring activity was verifying source data and consent forms, with a focus on data accuracy. Only six articles evaluated their on-site monitoring process, with improvements observed in recruitment rates and protocol adherence but with direct costs and staff time viewed as the major disadvantages. The on-site monitoring RCT ended prematurely so preventing full assessment.

LIMITATIONS

Trialists and organisations may utilise additional unpublished on-site monitoring systems. The varied terminology used to describe monitoring may have limited identification of some relevant articles.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that on-site monitoring is utilised in trials worldwide but systems vary considerably with little evidence to support practice. These on-site monitoring practices need to be evaluated empirically, including costs, to provide robust evidence for the contribution of site visits to trial performance and quality.

[Focus on academic multicenter trials: impact of the German drug law on hematological/oncological therapy optimization trials]

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of legal regulations for clinical trials on study centers participating in investigator-initiated trials (IITs) in the field of hematology/oncology.

METHOD

Questionnaires were sent out to the heads of hematology-oncology study centers.

RESULTS

Medical units participating in IITs have a good infrastructure and extensive experience in clinical trials. Depending on indication, a high proportion of patients have been treated in studies with the purpose to improve outcome. However, 35% of the responders will reduce their participation in IITs in the future due to a lack of financial support for staff involved in the extensive organizational tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

The widely recognized research field in therapy optimization trials in hematology and oncology in Germany is at risk. This will have negative effects on the patients as highly sophisticated protocols will no longer be initiated in several study centers, resulting in the loss of valuable data for the improvement of patient therapy and outcome. To stop this development, legislators as well as regulatory authorities and health insurances need to make the necessary changes in the legal framework.

New policies to address the global burden of childhood cancers

Childhood cancer is a major global health issue. Every year, almost 100 000 children die from cancer before the age of 15 years, more than 90% of them in resource-limited countries. Here, we review the key policy issues for the delivery of better care, research, and education of professionals and patients. We present a key list of time-limited proposals focusing on change to health systems and research and development. These include sector and system reforms to make care affordable to all, policies to promote growth of civil society around both cancer and Millennium Development Goals, major improvements to public health services (particularly the introduction of national cancer plans), improved career development, and increased remuneration of specialist health-care workers and government support for childhood cancer registries. Research and development proposals focus on sustainable funding, the establishment of more research networks, and clinical research specifically targeted at the needs of low-income and middle-income countries. Finally, we present proposals to address the need for clinical trial innovation, the complex dichotomy of regulations, and the threats to the availability of data for childhood cancers.

[Application for academic multicenter studies at German ethical review boards]

Before the start of a clinical trial, approval by the responsible institutional ethical review board (IRB) is required. In Germany, nearly 50 independent IRBs may be responsible for the different participating sites of a multicenter study. In trials for rare diseases, the participation of many centers is required. Therefore, the application procedure for academic multicenter trials in malignant hematologic diseases is often a bureaucratic nightmare. Different aspects of IRB application and possible approaches for improvement are presented.

Impact assessment of the European Clinical Trials Directive: a longitudinal, prospective, observational study analyzing patterns and trends in clinical drug trial applications submitted since 2001 to regulatory agencies in six EU countries

BACKGROUND

Shifts in clinical trial application rates over time indicate if the attractiveness of a country or region for the conduct of clinical trials is growing or decreasing. The purpose of this observational study was to track changes in drug trial application patterns across several EU countries in order to analyze the medium-term impact of the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on the conduct of drug trials.

METHODS

Rates of Clinical Trial Applications (CTA) for studies with medicinal products in those six countries in the EU, which authorize on average more than 500 trials per year, were analyzed. Publicly available figures on the number of annually submitted CTA, the distribution of trials per phase and the type of sponsorship were tracked; missing data were provided by national drug agencies.

RESULTS

Since 2001, the number of CTA in Italy and Spain increased significantly (5.0 and 2.5% average annual growth). For Italy, the gain was driven by a strong increase of applications from academic trial sponsors; Spain's growth was due to a rise in trials run by commercial sponsors. The Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK saw a decline (1.9, 2.3, 3.0 and 5.3% average annual diminution; significant (P < 0.05) except for Germany) in clinical drug trials. The decrease in the UK was caused by a sharp fall in academic trial activities. Across the six analyzed countries, no EU-wide trial-phase-specific patterns or trends were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC did not achieve the harmonization of clinical trial requirements across Europe. Rather, it resulted in the leveling of clinical trial activities caused by a continuing decrease in CTA rates in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK. Southern European countries, Italy and Spain, benefited to some extent from policy changes introduced by the Directive. In Italy's case, national funding measures helped to considerably promote the conduct of non-commercial trials. On the other hand, the EU Directive-driven transition from liberal policy environments, based on non-explicit trial approval through notifications, towards red-taped processes of trial authorization, contributed to the decreases in trial numbers in Germany and the UK. In the latter case, national research governance concerns had a share in the country's marked decline. However, different EU member states successfully developed best practices, which a new European legislation should take into consideration to resume Europe's attractiveness and international competitiveness for the conduct of clinical trials.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

The European clinical trials directive and its impact on critical care and emergency research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The European Clinical Trials Directive was issued in 2001 and aimed to simplify and harmonize the regulatory framework of clinical trials throughout Europe, thus stimulating European research. However, significant complexity and inconsistency remains due to disparate interpretation by European Union member states, creating substantial financial and administrative challenges for investigators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Critical care research has been particularly impacted by the Directive due to variable and often restrictive consenting procedures for incapacitated patients. Furthermore, the absence of a waiver of consent threatened to put an end to emergency research in Europe. Approval procedures by ethics committees are equally inconsistent, particularly those relating to provision of a single opinion for multicentre trials. This complexity as well as a general increase in administrative and financial burden following the Directive has been widely shown to cause a reduction in clinical trial activity in Europe.

SUMMARY

Various changes to the Directive have been called for by clinical researchers from diverse disciplines, including a risk-based approach to ethical approval, insurance, and monitoring; clarification of terms; and a general simplification of administrative procedures to reduce complexity and cost. This widespread advocacy has led to a planned revision of the Directive in 2011.

Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

In 1999, 270,000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research.

METHODS

The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established.

RESULTS

Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32,000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established.

CONCLUSION

The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care.

A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance

OBJECTIVE

Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines emphasize trial site monitoring, although the implementation is unspecified and evidence for benefit is sparse. We aimed to develop a site monitoring process using peer reviewers to improve staff training, site performance, data collection, and GCP compliance.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) team observed and gave feedback on trial recruitment and follow-up appointments, held staff meetings, and examined documentation during annual 2-day site visits. The intervention was evaluated in the ProtecT trial, a UK randomized controlled trial of localized prostate cancer treatments (ISRCTN20141297). The ProtecT coordinator and senior nurses conducted three monitoring rounds at eight sites (2004-2007). The process evaluation used PRIME report findings, trial databases, resource use, and a site nurse survey.

RESULTS

Adverse findings decreased across all sites from 44 in round 1 to 19 in round 3. Most findings related to protocol adherence or site organizational issues, including improvements in eligibility criteria application and data collection. Staff found site monitoring acceptable and made changes after reviews.

CONCLUSION

The PRIME process used observation by peer reviewers to improve protocol adherence and train site staff, which increased trial performance and consistency.

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health

BACKGROUND

A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described.

METHODS

Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States.

RESULTS

A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants.

LIMITATIONS

The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate.

CONCLUSIONS

Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

The unintended consequences of clinical trials regulations

Alex McMahon and colleagues critique the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidance on good clinical practice (GCP), arguing that it is having a disastrous effect on noncommerical randomized clinical trials in Europe.

Improving cancer outcomes through international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials

PURPOSE

The need for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger as we have made progress both in cancer treatment and screening. We sought to identify those efforts already underway which facilitate such collaboration, as well as barriers to greater collaboration.

METHODS

We reviewed the collective experiences of many cooperative groups, governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic investigators in their work to build international collaboration in cancer clinical trials across multiple disease sites.

RESULTS

More than a decade of work has led to effective global harmonization for many of the elements critical to cancer clinical trials. Many barriers remain, but effective international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials should become the norm, rather than the exception.

CONCLUSION

Our ability to strengthen international collaborations will result in maximization of our resources and patients, permitting us to change practice by establishing more effective therapeutic strategies. Regulatory, logistical, and financial hurdles, however, often hamper the conduct of joint trials. We must work together as a global community to overcome these barriers so that we may continue to improve cancer treatment for patients around the world.

Will children with cancer benefit from the new European Paediatric Medicines Regulation?

In December 2000, the European Parliament voted a resolution addressing the need for better medicines for children in Europe and asking the Commission to prepare a new regulation. Members of the European Parliament considered that there was indeed a health issue to be addressed and resolved at the EU level. Six years later, the EU regulation was published and entered into force on January the 26th, 2007. This European law is going to impact significantly access to new drugs for children with cancer. By considerably changing the landscape of drug development for children, the law will provide an opportunity to make further progress in the cure and quality of cure of children with cancer, at a time when truly innovative and effective anticancer drugs are becoming available. However, there are some risks and pitfalls that need to be anticipated and controlled in order to ensure that children will eventually benefit from the European initiative.

Reporting, access, and transparency: better infrastructure of clinical trials

Open access to information in medical science and adequate reporting of clinical trials may allow investigators and editors to recognize bias in study designs and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Unfortunately, most of clinical trials are very expensive and are often supported by industries that may have financial reasons to hide or partially disclose results. However, investigators and editors have a greater interest in publishing results that can immediately change clinical practice rather than negative results, thus contributing to facilitate publication biases. Several years ago, legislation in several countries mandated the registration of clinical trials as an effective means of promoting information access and full transparency in medical research. However, comprehensive registers have not been adequately supported by law, particularly in Europe, where legislation has ironically contributed to fragmented research, and dampened its competitiveness and productivity. In this context, appropriate strategies help to protect the independence of academic research and ensure full transparency in medical science.

Clinical trials for children with cancer in Europe - still a long way from harmonisation: a report from SIOP Europe

Clinical trials for children with cancer have been particularly hard hit by the introduction of the EU Clinical Trials Directive in 2004. Largely investigator-led and lacking in commercial sponsorship, they have struggled to find the resources necessary to comply with the complex bureaucracy. These rare diseases require multinational participation to permit appropriately powered clinical trials to be undertaken. Differences in interpretation of the Directive by national regulatory authorities have had a disproportionate effect on trials in children, highlighted by differences in what is deemed an 'investigational medicinal product' when paediatric use of an old drug is outside its licensed indication. Insurance costs have increased a 100-fold with no increase in actual risk between consecutive trials from the same study group. Issues raised at the recent conference held to reappraise the operation of the Directive are summarised to emphasise the particular issues for trials in children with cancer.

Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the specific components of setting up a simple multicentre clinical study four years after the new UK law on clinical trials was implemented in 2004.

DESIGN

Timelines associated with activating a randomized multicentre trial in lung cancer patients using an investigational medicinal product (statins) were prospectively recorded.

SETTING

84 trial centres in the UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The time taken to go through the three stages necessary to activate a trial at a centre was examined: that is, the time from when Site Specific Information was electronically transferred to a participating centre until local research ethics committee (LREC) or research and development (R&D) approvals were obtained, and a signed Clinical Trials Site Agreement (CTSA) was received.

RESULTS

It took at least six months to obtain LREC approval in 21% of centres and R&D approval in 52% of centres. Twelve centres (14%) took at least 12 months to obtain R&D approval. 31% of centres took at least three months to return a signed CTSA. Although 52% of centres took at least six months to be activated, 13% were able to complete all three stages in two months or less.

CONCLUSIONS

While some centres can activate trials relatively quickly, there is considerable variation the time taken to set up a trial, much of which is due to the delay in obtaining R&D approval. This is having a major adverse effect on UK health research. There is a national need to streamline the process for considering multi-centre non-commercial clinical trials, in particular, having fixed timelines for R&D assessment. Without this, the costs of trials will increase because of extended duration, and the time to answer a research question and alter clinical practice will be significantly prolonged.

Eurocan plus report: feasibility study for coordination of national cancer research activities

The EUROCAN+PLUS Project, called for by the European Parliament, was launched in October 2005 as a feasibility study for coordination of national cancer research activities in Europe. Over the course of the next two years, the Project process organized over 60 large meetings and countless smaller meetings that gathered in total over a thousand people, the largest Europe-wide consultation ever conducted in the field of cancer research.Despite a strong tradition in biomedical science in Europe, fragmentation and lack of sustainability remain formidable challenges for implementing innovative cancer research and cancer care improvement. There is an enormous duplication of research effort in the Member States, which wastes time, wastes money and severely limits the total intellectual concentration on the wide cancer problem. There is a striking lack of communication between some of the biggest actors on the European scene, and there are palpable tensions between funders and those researchers seeking funds.It is essential to include the patients' voice in the establishment of priority areas in cancer research at the present time. The necessity to have dialogue between funders and scientists to establish the best mechanisms to meet the needs of the entire community is evident. A top priority should be the development of translational research (in its widest form), leading to the development of effective and innovative cancer treatments and preventive strategies. Translational research ranges from bench-to-bedside innovative cancer therapies and extends to include bringing about changes in population behaviours when a risk factor is established.The EUROCAN+PLUS Project recommends the creation of a small, permanent and independent European Cancer Initiative (ECI). This should be a model structure and was widely supported at both General Assemblies of the project. The ECI should assume responsibility for stimulating innovative cancer research and facilitating processes, becoming the common voice of the cancer research community and serving as an interface between the cancer research community and European citizens, patients' organizations, European institutions, Member States, industry and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), putting into practice solutions aimed at alleviating barriers to collaboration and coordination of cancer research activities in the European Union, and dealing with legal and regulatory issues. The development of an effective ECI will require time, but this entity should be established immediately. As an initial step, coordination efforts should be directed towards the creation of a platform on translational research that could encompass (1) coordination between basic, clinical and epidemiological research; (2) formal agreements of co-operation between comprehensive cancer centres and basic research laboratories throughout Europe and (3) networking between funding bodies at the European level.The European Parliament and its instruments have had a major influence in cancer control in Europe, notably in tobacco control and in the implementation of effective population-based screening. To make further progress there is a need for novelty and innovation in cancer research and prevention in Europe, and having a platform such as the ECI, where those involved in all aspects of cancer research can meet, discuss and interact, is a decisive development for Europe.

Trends in the global funding and activity of cancer research

Cancer research has carved an astonishing trajectory giving rise to a multi billion euro global network covering most domains of science and including all manner of research funders from industry to government and philanthropic funders. We have estimated that in 2004/2005 the global spend on cancer research was 14,030 million euro, with the USA, dominated by the NCI (c. 83%) accounting for the largest absolute spend. This is between 2 and 3 times the level of per capita spend compared to EU-15 and Europe, respectively. In Europe, the UK is at comparable levels of spend compared to the USA. Funding for cancer research in Europe is split almost 50:50 between philanthropic and governmental sources. Cancer research productivity in terms of outputs (publications) is slightly greater in Europe compared to the USA with an increasing trend towards more applied (clinical) outputs. Both the USA and Europe have equally strong industry-supported output levels.