Investigator-initiated clinical trials conducted by the Portuguese Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (PtCRIN)

Risk Management in Clinical Trials: Assessment of Current Practices at Portuguese Clinical Trial Sites

Purpose

Over the last years, in response to the increasing complexity and demand of clinical trials, there has been a growing concern with the application of efficient risk management methodologies. The main objective of this work is to assess the current level of implementation of risk management activities by clinical trials sites' teams and identify points of improvement.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted through an original, non-validated questionnaire created to assess the risk management practices at Portuguese clinical trial sites. The web-based survey was sent by e-mail to the clinical trial sites identified, and it was available for one month. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings.

Results

In total, 46 clinical trial sites accepted to participate in this study. The surveys' answers showed that although 57.0% of sites reported the use of a systematic risk management tool, only nine sites (19.6%) described a standard tool or document that captured systematically the analysis of risks at the site level. Most of the sites (87.0%) showed willing to use a risk management tool specifically tailored for their operational needs, with the lack of knowledge about risk management being the main reason against its implementation.

Conclusion

This work indicates that the surveyed clinical trial sites generally recognize the importance of risk management methodologies as an opportunity to anticipate difficulties in the trial conduct and optimize the use of sites' resources. However, mainly due to lack of experience with risk management methodologies, sites are not currently implementing these strategies in the management of their trial-related operations. The development of a risk management tool for sites can be useful in this context.

Challenges of independent clinical research

Pharmaceutical companies fund most clinical trials on drugs. However, there are clinical issues that might not be a priority from a commercial point of view, but that should certainly be addressed, given their importance for patients and society in general. Independent clinical research represents a fundamental pillar here and its basic element is investigator-initiated studies/trials. In these studies, it is the researcher who conceives the idea, develops the project and also acts as the sponsor. Most researchers are familiar with participating as collaborators in studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. In these studies, the company is in charge of all the scientific, legal and financial aspects, leaving the responsibility of the researcher mainly limited to the inclusion of patients and compliance with the protocol. On the contrary, the start-up and development of an independent research study requires considerable resources - of knowledge, money and time - and careful planning on the part of the researcher. In this manuscript, we will review the main characteristics of the studies initiated by the researcher and their fundamental differences with those sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. We will also outline what its strengths and limitations are. Finally, we will propose some solutions to the main challenges they pose. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate potential researchers to undertake the challenge of conducting an independent clinical research project.

Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials provide one of the highest levels of evidence to support medical practice. Investigator initiated clinical trials (IICTs) answer relevant questions in clinical practice that may not be addressed by industry. For the first time, two European Countries are compared in terms of IICTs, respective funders and publications, envisaging to inspire others to use similar indicators to assess clinical research outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective systematic search of registered IICTs from 2004 to 2017, using four clinical trials registries was carried out in two European countries with similar population, GDP, HDI and medical schools but with different governmental models to fund clinical research. Each IICT was screened for sponsors, funders, type of intervention and associated publications, once completed.

RESULTS

IICTs involving the Czech Republic and Portugal were n = 439 (42% with hospitals as sponsors) and n = 328 (47% with universities as sponsors), respectively. The Czech Republic and Portuguese funding agencies supported respectively 61 and 27 IICTs. Among these, trials with medicinal products represent 52% in Czech Republic and 4% in Portugal. In the first, a higher percentage of IICTs' publications in high impact factor journals with national investigators as authors was observed, when compared to Portugal (75% vs 15%).

CONCLUSION

The better performance in clinical research by Czech Republic might be related to the existence of specific and periodic funding for clinical research, although further data are still needed to confirm this relationship. In upcoming years, the indicators used herein might be useful to tracking clinical research outcomes in these and other European countries.

The Current Status of European and National Financial Sources for Clinical Research and Their Impact on Paediatric Non-commercial Clinical Trials: A Case Study of the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric non-commercial interventional clinical trials (NICTs) are crucial for healthcare provision. In spite of the fact that current regulations and initiatives try to enhance the quantity and quality of paediatric NICTs, there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed in order to accelerate the conduct of relevant clinical trials in children. To improve the current landscape of paediatric clinical research, it is necessary to identify and analyse the main trends and shortcomings, along with their impact on national performance in paediatric NICTs and this is the aim of this work.

METHOD

A retrospective systematic search of paediatric NICTs was performed on four international clinical trials registries. Entries were filtered by date from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2017. Each identified paediatric NICT was screened and analysed for sponsors, funders, type of intervention, therapeutic area, design characteristics and associated publications.

RESULTS

The search identified 439 unique NICTs. When stratifying the trials by enrolment ages, 86 trials were found involving the paediatric population. Most trials investigated the use of medicinal products and were focused on cancer or cardiovascular diseases. The most common sources of the funding were non-profit organizations. Furthermore, from the total number of completed trials, only half of them already published their results.

CONCLUSION

The main shortcomings-specifically, ethical, methodological and, in particular, economic obstacles were identified. There is a continual need for greater support and collaboration between all major stakeholders including health policymakers, grant agencies, research institutions, pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers at the national and international level.

European survey on national training activities in clinical research

Background

Investigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists.

Methods

To fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action.

Results

The survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries.

Conclusions

There is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.

Issues, challenges, and the way forward in conducting clinical trials among neonates: investigators' perspective

Clinical trials are essential to test the safety and efficacy of new treatments in any population. The paucity of drug trials especially in the neonatal population has led to the widespread use of unlicensed or off-label medications, exposing them to the risks of drug toxicity and ineffective treatment. Ethical and operational challenges are no longer considered valid excuses for not conducting drug trials in neonates. We recently participated in a combined phase-2 and phase-3 trial investigating a new indigenous goat lung surfactant extract (GLSE) for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates. In this article, we share pertinent challenges faced by us during the trial to better inform and foster-positive discussion among drug developers, administrators, regulatory authorities, patient advocacy groups, and researchers. Also, we provide many tools developed for the GLSE trial that can be modified and used by prospective trialists.

Transparency and accuracy in funding investigator-initiated clinical trials: a systematic search in clinical trials databases

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify the sources of funding for investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) in Portugal, and to recommend ways to improve the quality of information collected from clinical trial databases about funding.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic search of trial registrations over the last 13 years-using the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and four clinical trials registries (CTRs)-was carried out to identify IICTs in Portugal, used as a case study. Data from the databases were compared with data contained in publications to evaluate the consistency of information on funding sources. The term 'database' is used in this study to refer to both the WHO-ICTRP and the CTRs. When mentioned separately, the WHO-ICTRP is referred to as a 'platform', while the CTRs are referred to as 'registries'.

OUTCOME

Suggestions to improve clinical trials databases to clearly identify the funding sources and data ownership in IICTs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-two IICTs were identified in Portugal. Twenty per cent of trials were supported by industry with unclear information on the ownership of the results. Inaccuracy was found in the information about sponsors and funders. The information about funding in all resulting publications (77 out of 133 completed studies) was also inconsistent between databases in 35 out of 77 (45%) of the studies. Notably, 23% of the trials funded by non-profit organisations (n=226) received funds from international and/or national funding agencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of IICT funding and ownership of results is unclear in the databases used for this study, which may lead to misunderstandings about the independence of the obtained results. Transparency and accuracy are desirable so that public decision makers and strategic partners can accurately evaluate national performance in this particular type of clinical research.