Regulation and Governance of Multinational Drug Trials in Stroke: Barriers and Possibilities

Evolution of Evidence-Based Medicine in Stroke

The introduction and evolution of evidence-based stroke medicine has realized major advances in our knowledge about stroke, methods of medical research, and patient outcomes that continue to complement traditional individual patient care. It is humbling to recall the state of knowledge and scientific endeavour of our forebears who were unaware of what we know now and yet pursued the highest standards for evaluating and delivering effective stroke care. The science of stroke medicine has evolved from pathophysiological theory to empirical testing. Progress has been steady, despite inevitable disappointments and cul-de-sacs, and has occasionally been punctuated by sensational breakthroughs, such as the advent of reperfusion therapies guided by imaging.

Are there opportunities for a closer collaboration on clinical stroke research in Europe?

Introduction

One of the aims of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) is to facilitate academic, multinational clinical stroke research. However, despite examples of successful regional and national stroke research networks and collaborative groups, there is no organisational structure at a European level that can facilitate multinational clinical stroke research.

Materials and methods

In a project including a survey and a workshop and involving stroke researchers in the ESO, we sought to identify the challenges faced by existing clinical stroke research networks, to define the purpose and roles of any future European stroke research collaboration, and to propose an organisational structure.

Results

The survey and workshop gave strong support for an alliance model with independent network members, with the purpose of facilitating clinical stroke research through improved coordination and communication, provision of support, education, and advocacy and communication with other stakeholders. The focus of a proposed European clinical stroke research alliance should be multinational randomised-controlled trials in acute care, prevention and rehabilitation, but the alliance could also support other forms of multi-national clinical stroke research.

Conclusion

There is an interest for increased collaboration on multinational clinical stroke research in Europe, in the form of an alliance of independent research networks and collaborative groups. The ESO Trials Network Committee will continue consultation with existing stroke research networks and collaborative groups, and other key stakeholders, to assess the feasibility and support for development of an ESO Trials Alliance.

Governance and mental health: contributions for public policy approach

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the conceptualization of the term governance on public mental health programs.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we analyzed the scientific literature published in the international scenario during 15 years (from 2000 to 2015). The databases analyzed were: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PubMed. Governance and mental health were the descriptors. We included relevant articles according to our subject of study and levels of analysis: (i) the concept of governance in mental health; (ii) process and decision spaces; (iii) strategic and pertinent actors who operate in the functioning of the health system, and (iv) social regulations. We excluded letters to the editor, news articles, comments and case reports, incomplete articles and articles whose approach did not include the object of study of this review.

RESULTS

We have found five conceptualizations of the term governance on mental health in the area of provision policies and service organization. The agents were both those who offer and those who receive the services: we identified several social norms.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of governance in mental health includes standards of quality and attention centered on the patient, and incorporates the consumers of mental healthcare in the decision-making process.

OBJETIVO

Analizar la conceptualización del término gobernanza en las políticas de salud mental.

MÉTODOS

En esta revisión sistemática se analizó literatura científica publicada en el ámbito internacional durante 15 años (de 2000 hasta 2015). Las bases de datos analizadas fueron: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO y PubMed. Los descriptores fueron gobernanza y salud mental. Fueron incluidos artículos relevantes de acuerdo a nuestro objeto de estudio y niveles de análisis: (i) concepto de gobernanza en salud mental; (ii) proceso y espacios de decisión; (iii) actores estratégicos y de interés que intervienen en el funcionamiento del sistema de salud, y (iv) normas sociales. Se excluyeron cartas al editor, noticias, comentarios y reporte de caso, artículos incompletos y artículos que no incluyeran en su abordaje el objeto de estudio de esta revisión.

RESULTADOS

Se reportaron cinco conceptualizaciones del término gobernanza en salud mental en el ámbito de políticas de provisión y organización de servicios. Los actores fueron desde proveedores a usuarios de servicios; se identificaron diversas normas sociales.

CONCLUSIONES

El concepto de gobernanza en salud mental incorpora estándares de calidad y atención centrada en el paciente, e incluye a los usuarios en la toma de decisiones.

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

Interventional clinical studies can provide the highest levels of evidence and generate significant results on specific investigational medicinal products or medical devices. In order to have powerful studies, attain unquestionable results and make significant discoveries, the number of patients enrolled must be high. Therefore, multinational, randomised clinical trials are necessary. The multicentre, multinational recruitment of subjects in investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) increases their logistical burden, justifying the need for specific infrastructures to ease implementation. Herein, we provide for the first time an overview of the facts and figures concerning IICTs, existing infrastructures' capacity for interventional clinical research, and scientific performance of investigators in a European country, Portugal. We aim to highlight the relevance and need for investing in European infrastructures such as the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) for multinational IICTs. A public, non-profit organisation, ECRIN facilitates the conduct of multinational clinical trials in Europe by coordinating scientific partners and their networks, and providing advice, management services and tools to enhance collaboration. Currently in Portugal, few multinational randomised IICTs are coordinated by national investigators. This is most likely due to the lack of human resources dedicated to clinical trials in clinical research centres (CRCs) as well as the scarcity of professional academic clinical trial units (CTUs) providing logistics and management services at non-profit rates. With the data shown, we expect to trigger the development of similar studies in other European countries and stress the impact of government support for IICTs.

The forecast for future clinical trials and clinical trialists-Storms or sunshine?

Randomized controlled trials are the most unbiased way to evaluate many types of healthcare interventions. Pharmaceutical and medical technology industries play an important role in developing and testing new interventions that have commercial potential. However, many interventions for the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of stroke are either not drugs or devices or have no commercial potential. Like many other clinicians who are uncertain about the value of existing or new treatments, we are involved in investigator-led clinical trials to resolve treatment uncertainties. There is common agreement that investigator-led clinical trials are facing increasing difficulties and that as a result clinicians may be deterred from pursuing clinical trials as a research career. In this article, we express our concerns for the future of such trials, balanced with the hope that systems to foster and sustain this important type of research in the future can be developed.

Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees

BACKGROUND

Implementation science research, especially when using participatory and co-design approaches, raises unique challenges for research ethics committees. Such challenges may be poorly addressed by approval and governance mechanisms that were developed for more traditional research approaches such as randomised controlled trials.

DISCUSSION

Implementation science commonly involves the partnership of researchers and stakeholders, attempting to understand and encourage uptake of completed or piloted research. A co-creation approach involves collaboration between researchers and end users from the onset, in question framing, research design and delivery, and influencing strategy, with implementation and broader dissemination strategies part of its design from gestation. A defining feature of co-creation is its emergent and adaptive nature, making detailed pre-specification of interventions and outcome measures impossible. This methodology sits oddly with ethics committee protocols that require precise pre-definition of interventions, mode of delivery, outcome measurements, and the role of study participants. But the strict (and, some would say, inflexible) requirements of ethics committees were developed for a purpose - to protect participants from harm and help ensure the rigour and transparency of studies. We propose some guiding principles to help square this circle. First, ethics committees should acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of research approaches, both formally (through training) and informally (by promoting debate and discussion); without active support, their members may not understand or value participatory designs. Second, ground rules should be established for co-design applications (e.g. how to judge when 'consultation' or 'engagement' becomes research) and communicated to committee members and stakeholders. Third, the benefits of power-sharing should be recognised and credit given to measures likely to support this important goal, especially in research with vulnerable communities. Co-design is considered best practice, for example, in research involving indigenous peoples in New Zealand, Australia and Canada.