A systematic literature review of evidence-based clinical practice for rare diseases: what are the perceived and real barriers for improving the evidence and how can they be overcome?

The role of the clinician in the multi-omics era: are you ready?

Since Garrod's first description of alkaptonuria in 1902, and newborn screening for phenylketonuria introduced in the 1960s, P4 medicine (preventive, predictive, personalized, and participatory) has been a reality for the clinician serving patients with inherited metabolic diseases. The era of high-throughput technologies promises to accelerate its scale dramatically. Genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics, glycomics, metabolomics, and lipidomics offer an amazing opportunity for holistic investigation and contextual pathophysiologic understanding of inherited metabolic diseases for precise diagnosis and tailored treatment. While each of the -omics technologies is important to systems biology, some are more mature than others. Exome sequencing is emerging as a reimbursed test in clinics around the world, and untargeted metabolomics has the potential to serve as a single biochemical testing platform. The challenge lies in the integration and cautious interpretation of these big data, with translation into clinically meaningful information and/or action for our patients. A daunting but exciting task for the clinician; we provide clinical cases to illustrate the importance of his/her role as the connector between physicians, laboratory experts and researchers in the basic, computer, and clinical sciences. Open collaborations, data sharing, functional assays, and model organisms play a key role in the validation of -omics discoveries. Having all the right expertise at the table when discussing the diagnostic approach and individualized management plan according to the information yielded by -omics investigations (e.g., actionable mutations, novel therapeutic interventions), is the stepping stone of P4 medicine. Patient participation and the adjustment of the medical team's plan to his/her and the family's wishes most certainly is the capstone. Are you ready?

Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices

BACKGROUND

Medical devices play an important role in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and care of diseases. However, compared to pharmaceuticals, there is no rigorous formal regulation for demonstration of benefits and exclusion of harms to patients. The medical device industry argues that the classical evidence hierarchy cannot be applied for medical devices, as randomised clinical trials are impossible to perform. This article aims to identify the barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches without meta-analysis and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications taking place during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

RESULTS

In addition to the barriers that exist for all trials, we identified three major barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices, namely: (1) randomisation, including timing of assessment, acceptability, blinding, choice of the comparator group and considerations on the learning curve; (2) difficulties in determining appropriate outcomes; and (3) the lack of scientific advice, regulations and transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review offers potential solutions to break down the barriers identified, and argues for applying the randomised clinical trial design when assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices.

Evidence-based practice within nutrition: what are the barriers for improving the evidence and how can they be dealt with?

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based clinical research poses special barriers in the field of nutrition. The present review summarises the main barriers to research in the field of nutrition that are not common to all randomised clinical trials or trials on rare diseases and highlights opportunities for improvements.

METHODS

Systematic academic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

RESULTS

Many nutrients occur in multiple forms that differ in biological activity, and several factors can alter their bioavailability which raises barriers to their assessment. These include specific difficulties with blinding procedures, with assessments of dietary intake, and with selecting appropriate outcomes as patient-centred outcomes may occur decennia into the future. The methodologies and regulations for drug trials are, however, applicable to nutrition trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on clinical nutrition should start by collecting clinical data systematically in databases and registries. Measurable patient-centred outcomes and appropriate study designs are needed. International cooperation and multistakeholder engagement are key for success.

Barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials within all disease areas

Background

Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.

Methods

We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

Results

The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.

Conclusions

The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2099-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.