Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility

Failure of a Multi-Centric Clinical Trial Investigating Neoadjuvant Radio-Chemotherapy in Resectable Pancreatic Carcinoma (NEOPA-NCT01900327)-Which Lessons Are Learnt?

BACKGROUND

A significant number of clinical trials must be prematurely discontinued due to recruitment failure, and only a small fraction publish results and a failure analysis. Based on our experience on conducting the NEOPA trial on neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma (NCT01900327-funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research-BMBF), we performed an analysis of potential reasons for recruitment failure and general problems in conducting clinical trials in Germany.

METHODS

Systematic analysis of environmental factors, trial history, conducting and funding in the background of the published literature.

RESULTS

The recruitment failure was based on various study-specific conceptional and local environmental aspects and in peculiarities of the German surgical study culture. General reservations against a neo-adjuvant study concept combined with game changing scientific progresses during the long-lasting planning and funding phase have led to a reduced interest in the trial design and recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial planning and conducting should be focused, professionalized and financed on a national basis. Individual interests must be subordinated to reach the goal to perform more relevant and successful clinical trials in Germany. Bureaucratic processes must be further fastened between a trial idea and the start of a study.

Design a Clinical Research Protocol: Influence of Real-World Setting

The design of a clinical research protocol to evaluate new therapies, devices, patient quality of life, and medical practices from scratch is probably one of the greatest challenges for the majority of novice researchers. This is especially true since a high-quality methodology is required to achieve success and effectiveness in academic and hospital research centers. This review discusses the concrete steps and necessary guidelines needed to create and structure a research protocol. Along with the methodology, some administrative challenges (ethics, regulatory and people-management barriers) and possible time-saving recommendations (standardized procedures, collaborative training, and centralization) are discussed.

Ensuring the Scientific Value and Feasibility of Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Ethical and scientific principles require that clinical trials address an important question and have the resources needed to complete the study. However, there are no clear standards for review that would ensure that these principles are upheld.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of nineteen experts in clinical trial design, conduct, and/or oversight to elucidate current practice and identify areas of need with respect to ensuring the scientific value and feasibility of clinical trials prior to initiation and while ongoing. We used a priori and grounded theory to analyze the data and constant comparative method to induce higher order themes.

RESULTS

Interviewees perceived determination of scientific value as the responsibility of the investigator and, secondarily, other parties who review or oversee research. Interviewees reported that ongoing trials are rarely reevaluated due to emerging evidence from external sources, evaluation is complex, and there would be value in the development of standards for monitoring and evaluating evidence systematically. Investigators, IRBs, and/or data monitoring committees (DMCs) could undertake these responsibilities. Feasibility assessments are performed but are typically inadequate; potential solutions are unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

There are three domains where current approaches are suboptimal and in which further guidance is needed. First, who has the responsibility for conducting scientific review, whether it be the investigator, IRB, and/or DMC is often unclear. Second, the standards for scientific review (e.g., appropriate search terms, data sources, and analytic plan) should be defined. Third, guidance is needed on the evaluation of ongoing studies in light of potentially new and evolving evidence, with particular reference to evidence from outside the trial itself.

Analysis of Rates of Completion, Delays, and Participant Recruitment in Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Discontinuation and nonpublication are established sources of avoidable waste among surgical trials, but rates of delayed completion and recruiting shortfalls remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the rate of delayed completion, incomplete enrollment, and discontinuation among randomized clinical trials in surgical populations and the duration of delays and extent of recruiting shortfalls among these trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study examined randomized clinical trials in surgical populations registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Analysis was conducted between October 27, 2021, and June 30, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were the percentages of trials completed on time or with full enrollment. Delays and recruiting shortfalls were identified by comparing projected enrollment and study timeframes prespecified at the time of registration with the actual study duration and enrollment reported on completion or discontinuation. Absolute and relative differences between planned and actual trial conduct were presented for discontinued trials and those completed with delays or recruiting shortfalls.

RESULTS

In total, 2542 randomized clinical trials in surgical populations were included in the study sample, of which 370 (14.6%; 95% CI, 13.2%-15.9%) were completed both on time and with full enrollment. Approximately 1 in 5 trials (20.4%; 95% CI, 18.9%-22.0%) were completed within their planned timeframe, and 1166 trials (45.9%; 95% CI, 43.9%-47.8%) met their prespecified enrollment target. The median delay among completed trials was 12.2 months (IQR, 5.1-24.3 months) or 66.7% (IQR, 30.1%-135.8%) longer than planned. Among completed trials that did not meet their prespecified enrollment target, the median recruiting shortfall was equivalent to 31.0% (IQR, 12.7%-55.5%) of the planned study sample. A total of 546 trials (21.5%; 95% CI, 19.9%-23.1%) were discontinued. The median time to discontinuation was 26.4 months (IQR, 15.2-45.7 months), and the median recruiting shortfall among discontinued trials was equivalent to 92.7% (IQR, 65.0%-100.0%) of the trial's prespecified enrollment target.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that delayed completion, recruiting shortfalls, and untimely discontinuation were common among surgical trials. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that investigators and funders do not overestimate the feasibility of planned trials.