Pandemic Pandemonium: Pausing Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of clinical trials: a quantitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Globally, healthcare has shouldered much of the socioeconomic brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic leading to numerous clinical trials suspended or discontinued.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the COVID-19 impact on the number of clinical trials worldwide.

METHODS

Data deposited by 219 countries in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (2007-2020) were interrogated using targeted queries. A time series model was fitted to the data for studies ongoing, initiated, or ended between 2007 Quarter (Q) 1 and 2019 Q4 to predict the expected trials number in 2020 in the COVID-19 absence. The predicted values were compared with the actual 2020 data to quantify the pandemic impact.

RESULTS

The ongoing registered trials number grew from 2007 Q1 (33,739) to 2019 Q4 (80,319). By contrast, there were markedly fewer ongoing trials in all four quarters of 2020 compared with forecasted values (1.6%-2.8% decrease). When excluding COVID-19-related studies, this disparity grew further (3.4%-5.8% decrease), to a peak of almost 5,000 fewer ongoing trials than estimated for 2020 Q2. The initiated non-COVID-19 trials number was higher than predicted in 2020 Q4 (9.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This pandemic has impacted clinical trials. Provided that current trends persist, clinical trial activities may soon recover to at least pre-COVID-19 levels.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Non-COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but no systematic analysis has evaluated the overall impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19-related RCTs. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in February 2020. Eligible studies included all randomized trials with a start date after 1 January 2010 and were active during the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The effect of the pandemic period on non-COVID-19 trials was determined by piece-wise regression models using 11 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic and by time series analysis (models fitted using 2015–2018 data and forecasted for 2019–2020). The study endpoints were early trial stoppage, normal trial completion, and trial activation. There were 161,377 non-COVID-19 trials analyzed. The number of active trials increased annually through 2019 but decreased in 2020. According to the piece-wise regression models, trial completion was not affected by the pandemic (p = 0.56) whereas trial stoppage increased (p = 0.001). There was a pronounced decrease in trial activation early during the pandemic (p < 0.001) which then recovered. The findings from the time series models were consistent comparing forecasted and observed results (trial completion p = 0.22; trial stoppage p < 0.01; trial activation, p = 0.01). During the pandemic, there was an increase in non-COVID-19 RCTs stoppage without changes in RCT completion. There was a sharp decline in new RCTs at the beginning of the pandemic, which later recovered.

Managing Human Subjects Research During a Global Pandemic at an Academic Center: Lessons Learned From COVID-19

By March 2020, New York City became the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Consequently, Columbia University, with its large portfolio of human subjects research, had to address the challenges of protecting thousands of research participants and research staff from potential exposure to COVID-19 while facilitating essential biomedical research, especially pandemic-related studies. The authors describe, from the perspective of Columbia's research administration leadership, how the University and its primary teaching hospital ramped down-and later ramped up-human subjects research and reflect on lessons learned. As the pandemic unfolded, only studies offering the prospect of direct benefit to subjects were permitted to continue with in-person contact. New in-person participant enrollment ceased, except for COVID-19 prevention or treatment studies. Centralized, frequently updated communication about policies and procedures was disseminated to the Columbia research community. Procedural efficiencies were rapidly developed and implemented for review and oversight of human subjects research and contractual agreements for clinical trials. More frequent institutional review board meetings and 24-hour support markedly reduced turnaround time for COVID-19 studies, without delaying approvals of non-COVID-19 research. Research administration worked closely with relevant principal federal agencies, whose regulatory flexibility facilitated the efficient implementation of COVID-19-related research. Overall, the ramp-down and ramp-up of the majority of human subjects research, with specified priorities and accelerated processes, worked well. Adjustments were made to handle the increase in administrative tasks, the need to respond rapidly to added oversight responsibilities, and the management of the many new COVID-19-related research protocols. Timely, centralized communication, support for staff needs, prioritization, and collaboration were critical to successful research oversight at a large-scale academic setting in the midst of a pandemic. These perspectives may be useful to academic research centers addressing the current and future pandemics.

A snapshot of U.S. IRB review of COVID-19 research in the early pandemic

Background/Objective:

Along with the greater research enterprise, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) had to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs had to review and oversee COVID-related research, while navigating strict public health measures and a workforce largely relegated to working from home. Our objectives were to measure adjustments to standard IRB review processes, IRB turnaround time and document and any novel ethical issues encountered.

Methods:

Structured data requests were sent to members of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight directing Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP).

Results:

Fourteen of the 32 HRPP director members responded to a questionnaire about their approach to review and oversight during COVID-19. Eleven of the 14 provided summary data on COVID-19-specific protocols and six of the 11 provided protocol-related documents for our review. All respondents adopted at least one additional COVID-19-specific step to their usual review process. The average turnaround time for convened and expedited IRB reviews was 15 calendar days. In our review of the documents from 194 COVID-19-specific protocols (n = 302 documents), we identified only a single review that raised ethical concerns unique to COVID-19.

Conclusions:

Our data provide a snapshot of how HRPPs approached the review of COVID-19-specific protocols at the start of the pandemic in the USA. While not generalizable to all HRPPs, these data indicate that HRPPs can adapt and respond quickly response to a pandemic and likely need little novel expertise in the review and oversight of COVID-19-specific protocols.

Clinical Trial Visits in the Age of COVID-19: Implementation of Research Participant Safety Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a major impact on how current clinical trials are being conducted in the U.S. Researchers have experienced the effects of COVID-19 through the halting and delaying of clinical trials, the lack of personal protection equipment (PPE), the closing of clinical sites, and a decrease in participant recruitment. Many clinical trials will have more missing data because of a participant's inability to attend in-person visits, discontinuation of trial activities, or interruption of time-sensitive study collection data due to COVID-19. All of these events affect the data quality of trials. Government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have issued recommendations for investigators conducting clinical trials to combat the spread of COVID-19 and to maintain data integrity. Institutions sponsoring clinical trials have also provided guidelines to continue, modify, or pause research studies that are essential to ensure participant and research team safety. Key recommendations include implementing telehealth appointments, wearing a protective mask and face shield, quarantining for 14 days if exposed to COVID-19 or having traveled, and, if possible, maintaining a 6-foot distance. It is also recommended that investigators implement COVID-19 screening questionnaires prior to and during on-site visits. This includes participants and research personnel completing a temperature check and questionnaire screen before in-person data collection. This article will discuss the challenges encountered by researchers conducting clinical trials and provide resources and examples to assist investigators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

HIV prevention research and COVID-19: putting ethics guidance to the test

BACKGROUND

Critical public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted health research worldwide, including HIV prevention research. While general guidance has been issued for the responsible conduct of research in these challenging circumstances, the contours of the dueling COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS pandemics raise some critical ethical issues for HIV prevention research. In this paper, we use the recently updated HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Ethics Guidance Document (EGD) to situate and analyze key ethical challenges related to the conduct of HIV prevention research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify potential areas for refinement of the guidance document based on this unprecedented state of affairs.

MAIN BODY

Necessary actions taken for HIV prevention research studies due to the COVID-19 pandemic involve an array of ethical issues including those related to: (1) risk mitigation; (2) behavior change; (3) compounding vulnerability; (4) community engagement; (5) trial reopening; and 6) shifting research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the dueling HIV and COVID-19 global pandemics, research teams and sponsors must be nimble in responding to the rapidly changing environment by being sensitive to the associated ethical issues. The HTPN EGD provides a rich set of tools to help identify, analyze and address many of these issues. At the same time, future refinements of the HPTN EGD and other research ethics guidance could be strengthened by providing explicit advice regarding the ethical issues associated with disrupted research and the reopening of studies. In addition, additional consideration should be given to appropriately balancing domains of risk (e.g., physical versus social), addressing the vulnerability of research staff and community partners, and responding to un-anticipatable ancillary care needs of participants and communities. Appropriately addressing these issues will necessitate conceptual work, which would benefit from the careful documentation of the actual ethical issues encountered in research, the strategies implemented to overcome them, and their success in doing so. Throughout all of these efforts, it is critical to remember that the HIV pandemic not be forgotten in the rush to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.