Multi-centre research in Australia: analysis of a recent National Health and Medical Research Council-funded project

Multi-centre ethics and research governance review can impede non-interventional clinical research

BACKGROUND

The inter-jurisdictional National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme for Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approvals of human research is designed to reduce the reported delays and costs of ethical review. Introduction of the NMA set forth an uncoupling of the ethics and governance review processes, permitting a single ethical review for multiple sites, while continuing separate governance review for each centre covering financial and operational aspects of the research project.

AIM

To compare the time required to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australia for a non-interventional investigator-led study from December 2015 to approval times for an earlier pre-NMA study utilising a similar study design and study sites and evaluate the effect that the NMA has had on total approval time for non-interventional multi-centre projects.

METHODS

We recorded the time taken to obtain ethics and governance approval at 16 sites for our nationwide low-risk non-interventional study looking at the prevalence and aetiology of non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection in people with cystic fibrosis in Australia.

RESULTS

Applications were submitted to three hospitals and one university HREC to conduct our study at 16 hospital sites, HREC approval took from 16 to 79 days (median 28). Subsequent site-specific governance approval at 15 hospital sites took 23-225 days (median 83). The entire process of gaining ethical and governance approval to conduct the study at 16 sites took 24 months at an estimated cost of AU$56000 (US$ 42 000).

CONCLUSION

Lengthy governance approval processes negate benefits gained from centralised ethics review under the NMA.

The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research

Background

Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality registries, observational studies and implementation studies. We examined the costs of two large Australian multi-centre studies in obtaining ethical and site-specific approvals.

Methods

We collected data on staff time spent on approvals and expressed the overall cost as a percent of the total budget.

Results

The total costs of gaining approval were 38 % of the budget for a study of 50 centres (mean cost AUD $6960 per site) and 2 % for a study of 11 centres (mean cost AUD $2300 per site). Seventy-five and 90 % of time was spent on repeated tasks, respectively, and many time-consuming tasks, such as reformatting documents, did nothing to improve the study design or participant safety.

Conclusions

Improvements have been made to the ethical approval application system, but more gains could be made without increasing risks of harm to research participants. We propose that ethical review bodies and individual sites publish statistics on how long they take to process approvals which could then be nationally benchmarked.

Project Management of Randomized Clinical Trials: A Narrative Review

Context:

A well-structured protocol for a clinical trial may be able to answer clinical questions, but it cannot be deemed enough to ensure success in the face of incompetent management of time as well as human and economic resources. To address this problem, in this article, we present our literature review on evidence as to how a good knowledge of proper management among researchers can enhance the likelihood of the success of clinical trial projects.

Evidence Acquisition:

Using multiple search strategies, we conducted a literature review on published studies in the English language from 2002 to 2012 by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE.

Results:

Our review suggests that a successful trial requires a work plan or work scope as well as a timeline. The trial manager should subsequently manage the study in accordance with the plan and the timeline. Many research units have called for a clinical project manager with scientific background and regulatory skills to effect coordination among various aspects of a clinical trial.

Conclusions:

Project management may benefit both the managerial and scientific aspects of medical projects and reduce fund waste. However, little has been written to date on project management in the context of clinical research. The suggestions represent the views of the individual authors. To provide a high level of evidence in this regard, we recommend that a randomized controlled trial be performed to compare trial projects progressed with and without the use of project management.

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Background

Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance.

Methods

Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates.

Results

Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217).

Conclusions

In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813

Ethical issues: the multi-centre low-risk ethics/governance review process and AMOSS

BACKGROUND

The Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System (AMOSS) conducts surveillance and research of rare and serious conditions in pregnancy. This multi-centre population health study is considered low risk with minimal ethical impact.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the ethics/governance review pathway undertaken by AMOSS.

METHOD

Prospective, descriptive study during 2009-2011 of the governance/ethical review processes required to gain approval for Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) maternity units with more than 50 births per year (n = 303) to participate in AMOSS.

RESULTS

Review processes ranged from a single application for 24 NZ sites, a single application for eligible hospitals in two Australian states, full Health Research Ethics Committee (HREC) applications for individual hospitals, through simple letters of support. As of September 2011, 46 full/expedited ethics applications, 131 site governance applications and 136 letters of support requests were made over 33 months, involving an estimated 3261 hours by AMOSS staff/investigators, and an associated resource burden by participating sites, to obtain approval to receive nonidentifiable data from 291 hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The AMOSS research system provides an important resource to enhance knowledge of conditions that cause rare and serious maternal morbidity. Yet the highly variable ethical approval processes required to implement this study have been excessively repetitive and burdensome. This process jeopardises timely, efficient research project implementation, without corresponding benefits to research participants. The resource burden to establish research governance for AMOSS confirms the urgent need for the Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER) to further streamline ethics/governance review processes for multi-centre research.