Early stopping of trials

Implications of product withdrawal on a post-approval pragmatic trial: The VOLUME study experience

INTRODUCTION

Many clinical trials terminate early due to safety and efficacy concerns, and less often due to unexpected "positive" findings. However, early termination of post-approval (Phase IV) pragmatic randomized trials for commercial reasons is less frequent, may be more complex, and may require added flexibility in closure methods, including short term follow-up. VOLUME was a randomized, open-label, post-approval pragmatic clinical trial (PCT) or large simple trial that terminated early due to product withdrawal. The aim of this paper is to describe circumstances unique to post-approval PCTs that may require a closure amendment rather than immediate study termination, and our recommendations for operational study closure in these circumstances. We use the VOLUME case study throughout to provide a practical example.

METHODS

Study closeout considerations at the study level include: notifying external governance bodies, e.g., data monitoring committees (DMC), and scientific steering committees (SSC); executing a study closure amendment; notifying and training of study physicians; and institutional review board (IRB)/ethics committee (EC) approvals. Study closure considerations at the patient level focus on patient safety and include: patient notification, efficient transition to alternative treatments, the need for re-consenting; and drug supply shortages.

CONCLUSIONS

Early study closeout logistics require careful analysis, detailed planning, and close coordination, and are ideally considered at the study planning phase. Lessons learned from the VOLUME closeout should help other researchers devise contingencies when terminating post approval pragmatic trials that utilize a marketed product.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00359801.

Money and morals: ending clinical trials for financial reasons

Too often, biopharmaceutical companies stop their clinical trials solely for financial reasons. In this chapter, we discuss this phenomenon against the backdrop of a 2011 decision by Geron Corporation to abandon its stem cell clinical trial for spinal cord injury (SCI), the preliminary results of which were released in May 2014. We argue that the resultant harms are widespread and are different in nature from the consequences of stopping trials for scientific or medical reasons. We examine the ethical and social effects that arise from such decisions and discuss them in light of ethical frameworks, including duties of individual stakeholders and corporate sponsors. We offer ways that sponsors and clinical sites can ensure that trials are responsibly started, and once started adequately protect the interests of participants. We conclude with recommendations that industry sponsors of clinical trials should adopt in order to advance a collective and patient-centered research ethic.