Global clinical trial mobilization for COVID-19: higher, faster, stronger

Temporal trends and characteristics associated with racial, ethnic, and sex representation in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early in the pandemic, extensive attention was cast on limited inclusion of historically underrepresented patient populations in COVID-19 clinical trials. How diverse representation improved following these initial reports remains unclear.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched (through April 2024) for US-based COVID-19 trials. Utilizing random-effects, we compared expected proportions of trial participants from racial and ethnic groups and of female sex between trials enrolling primarily in 2020 versus primarily 2021-2022. Meta-regression was performed to assess associations between trial characteristics and group representation.

RESULTS

We retrieved 157 studies comprising 198,012 participants. White (2020: 63.1% [95% CI, 60.8%-67.3%]; 2021-2022: 73.8% [95% CI, 71.5%-76.0%]) and female representation (2020: 46.1% [95% CI, 44.7%-47.4%)]; 2021-2022: 51.1% [95% CI, 49.3%-52.8%) increased across enrollment periods. Industry-sponsored trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.18]) and Hispanic or Latinx representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.25]) and lower Asian (coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.06- -0.003]) and female representation (coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.07- -0.002]). Outpatient trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.26]) and female representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.18]), and lower Black representation (coefficient, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.10- -0.08]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved female representation in COVID-19 trials over time, there was no clear increase in non-White representation. Trial characteristics such as primary sponsor, clinical setting, and intervention type correlate with representation of specific demographic groups and should be considered in future efforts to improve participant diversity.

Regulatory approval of clinical trials: is it time to reinvent the wheel?

Less than 1% of all clinical trials are conducted in Africa. In 2019, only six of 26 oncology clinical trials conducted in Africa were conducted in countries with subjects of African ancestry. There are multiple barriers that hinder the conduct of cancer clinical trials in Africa. Time to trial activation (TTA) is the administrative and regulatory process required before a study can be activated-an important metric and often a major barrier for site selection. In Kenya, TTA involves review by Institutional Review Board (IRB), Pharmacy and Poisons Board, National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation and Ministry of Health, all in a sequential fashion. We performed a prospective review of TTA for all clinical trials initiated and began enrolment at the Aga Khan University-Clinical Research Unit between June 2020 and November 2022. TTA was defined as total time from submission of study documents (to regulatory bodies) to site activation by the sponsor. A total of 12 studies were submitted for regulatory review. Eleven (nine industry sponsored and two investigator initiated) were approved for activation. Three were COVID-19-related studies and eight were non-COVID-19-related studies. Mean TTA for COVID-related studies was 80 days (range 40-120). Mean TTA for non-COVID-related studies was 259 days (range 190-399). This TTA difference was statistically significant (p=0.02). TTA remains a significant barrier to the efficient regulatory approval of and subsequent conduct of clinical trials in Africa. COVID-19 pandemic revealed that parallel processing and expedited review of clinical trials allows efficient TTA without compromising human subject safety or data integrity. These lessons need to be applied to all clinical trials in order for African sites to become competitive and contribute data from African patients to global knowledge.

Implementing an outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 treatment in an emergency epidemic context: a mixed methods study among operational and research stakeholders within the Coverage trial, Bordeaux (France)

BACKGROUND

The emergency set-up and implementation of outpatient clinical trials on epidemic emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19 raise many issues in terms of research structuration, regulations, and health systems organization. We aimed to describe the experience and points of view of different stakeholders involved in a French home-based outpatient trial on COVID-19 and to identify the early barriers and facilitators to the trial implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in July 2020. A self-administered questionnaire was emailed to 213 clinical, operational and research stakeholders involved in the Coverage trial; individual semi-directed interviews were conducted among 14 stakeholders. Questionnaire data and written interview notes are presented together by key theme.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty six stakeholders responded to the questionnaire. 53.4% did not have prior experience in clinical research. The motivation of most stakeholders to participate in the Coverage trial was to feel useful during the pandemic. 87.9% agreed that the trial had an unusual set-up timeframe, and many regretted a certain lack of regulatory flexibility. Mobile medical teams and specific professional skills were perceived as instrumental for outpatient research.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a home-based outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 was perceived as relevant and innovative although requiring important adaptations of usual professional responsibilities and standard research procedures. Lessons learned from the Coverage trial underline the need for improved networks between hospital and community medicine, and call for a dedicated and reactive outpatient research platform on emerging or threatening infectious diseases.

Public perceptions of the association between drug effectiveness and drug novelty in France during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, public debates overtly addressed the promises of new innovative drugs. Many of these debates pitted those who advocated for the development of new drugs by pharmaceutical companies against those who favored the repositioning of existing drugs. Our study explored perceptions of the association between drug novelty and effectiveness as well as perceptions of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in drug development.

METHODS

Data were collected in January 2021 from a quota sample of the French population aged 18-75years (n=1,000) during the second round of the "Health Literacy Survey 2019" (HLS₁₉).

RESULTS

We tested the hypothesis that individuals with a high level of familiarity with the health care system and those with a high level of trust in institutions are more likely to agree that new drugs are more effective than old ones and that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry. A quarter (25%) of respondents agreed that new drugs are always more effective than old ones. Agreement with this statement was stronger among respondents with a high level of familiarity with the health care system (as measured by the navigational health literacy score, OR 3.34 [2.13-5.24]). Respondents with a low level of trust in pharmaceutical companies or politicians were two times less likely to agree that new drugs are always more effective than old ones (OR 0.63 [0.42-0.95] and OR 0.68 [0.49-0.94], respectively). A high level of trust in pharmaceutical companies was reported by 42% of respondents, and 43% agreed that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the perceived effectiveness of innovative drugs is associated with familiarity with the health care system and trust in institutions.

Pre-market development times for innovative vaccines - to what extent are the COVID-19 vaccines outliers?

One reason expressed in surveys of people reporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is how rapidly these vaccines have reached the market. To estimate the length of time the COVID-19 vaccine spent in research and development as compared to other novel vaccines, we apply previously established methods for estimating medical product development times, using the key associated patent filings cited by the manufacturer as the marker of when commercial development activity began. Applying these methods to a cohort of recently approved innovative vaccines and comparing them to the first-approved COVID-19 vaccine (BioNTech/Pfizer), we found key patent filings for the technology in this COVID-19 vaccine occurred 10.0 years prior to regulatory authorization. By this metric, the development timelines for innovative vaccines have been shortening since the 1980s, and the COVID-19 vaccine comfortably fits within this pattern. Vaccine development timelines have now even drawn to parity with many of the most commonly used drugs.