Clinical trial design in neonatal pharmacology: effect of center differences, with lessons from the Pediatric Oncology Cooperative Research experience

Study factors associated with the incompletion of clinical trials that include pediatric patients: a retrospective analysis of the European Clinical Trials Database and a lesson from the European region

Background

Incomplete clinical trials for pediatric drug development result in a lack of adequate scientific evidence for providing appropriate medication to pediatric populations; this is especially true for Japan. Thus, using the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), this study aimed to identify the factors related to the study design and administration that lead to incompletion of clinical trials that included pediatric patients.

Methods

We focused on clinical trials that included patients under the age of 18 registered in the database, named as the European Clinical Trials Database between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two groups of trials were identified: “all cases completed” and “not all cases completed,” reflecting whether they were completed in all participating countries/regions or not. To identify the factors of the occurrence of “not all cases completed,” a logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In total, 142 clinical trials (95 “all cases completed” and 47 “not all cases completed”) were analyzed.

Results

The logistic regression analysis showed the number of countries in which a clinical trial was conducted to be the only significant factor (odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.5); this was identified as the primary factor for the occurrence of “not all cases completed” in the clinical trials that included pediatric patients.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the feasibility of clinical trials that include pediatric patients, such as whether the countries in which the trial is to be conducted are suitable, must be considered prior to the trial.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05143-6.

Single-center trials in neonatology: Issues to consider

Single-center randomized controlled trials confer certain advantages over multi-center trials, in that they are cheaper and easier to design and conduct. However, recent research suggests that single-center trials are likely to overestimate treatment effects. There are notable examples in neonatology where results from multi-center trials have contradicted results of single-center studies. In this paper we discuss issues around external generalizability of single-center studies, and methodological issues that may cause bias.

A Delphi process to optimize quality and performance of drug evaluation in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonatal trials remain difficult to conduct for several reasons: in particular the need for study sites to have an existing infrastructure in place, with trained investigators and validated quality procedures to ensure good clinical, laboratory practices and a respect for high ethical standards. The objective of this work was to identify the major criteria considered necessary for selecting neonatal intensive care units that are able to perform drug evaluations competently.

METHODOLOGY AND MAIN FINDINGS

This Delphi process was conducted with an international multidisciplinary panel of 25 experts from 13 countries, selected to be part of two committees (a scientific committee and an expert committee), in order to validate criteria required to perform drug evaluation in neonates. Eighty six items were initially selected and classified under 7 headings: "NICUs description-Level of care" (21), "Ability to perform drug trials: NICU organization and processes (15), "Research Experience" (12), "Scientific competencies and area of expertise" (8), "Quality Management" (16), "Training and educational capacity" (8) and "Public involvement" (6). Sixty-one items were retained and headings were rearranged after the first round, 34 were selected after the second round. A third round was required to validate 13 additional items. The final set includes 47 items divided under 5 headings.

CONCLUSION

A set of 47 relevant criteria will help to NICUs that want to implement, conduct or participate in drug trials within a neonatal network identify important issues to be aware of.

SUMMARY POINTS

1) Neonatal trials remain difficult to conduct for several reasons: in particular the need for study sites to have an existing infrastructure in place, with trained investigators and validated quality procedures to ensure good clinical, laboratory practices and a respect for high ethical standards. 2) The present Delphi study was conducted with an international multidisciplinary panel of 25 experts from 13 countries and aims to identify the major criteria considered necessary for selecting neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that are able to perform drug evaluations competently. 3) Of the 86 items initially selected and classified under 7 headings--"NICUs description-Level of care" (21), "Ability to perform drug trials: NICU organization and processes (15), "Research Experience" (12), "Scientific competencies and area of expertise" (8), "Quality Management" (16), "Training and educational capacity" (8) and "Public involvement" (6)--47 items were selected following a three rounds Delphi process. 4) The present consensus will help NICUs to implement, conduct or participate in drug trials within a neonatal network.