New clinical trial rules: Academic trials and tribulations

Evaluation of factors that act as barriers in conducting academic trials - An investigator's perception

Background

Academic trials are essential in investigating health research questions relevant to the society. Only a few leading research institutions in India have been engaged in academic trials. Thus, there is a need to understand what factors dampen the spirit of the academician in conducting academic clinical trials.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the study is to evaluate the investigator's perception of obstacles to carrying out academic trials and to identify factors that will motivate investigators in conducting academic trials.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study in a tertiary care hospital for 6 months. Faculty members working in academic institutes were selected. A structured questionnaire was designed for the study and administered using google forms. Responses were taken on a Likert scale. Validity and reliability assessments were carried out. Mann-Whitney test was applied to assess differences between demographic groups. P <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Most of the participants rated applying for research grants (76%), obtaining funding for the study and making arrangements for compensation for trial-related events (75%) as extremely challenging. We found that the degree of challenge is significantly lower in the faculty members who conducted clinical trials in the past as against those who did not (P = 0.00069). We also found that the degree of challenge is significantly higher in the faculty members with <10 years of experience than those with >10 years of experience (P = 0.00001).

Conclusion

Thus, to conclude the challenges faced by investigators were at multiple levels, most common being applying for research grants and making arrangements for the funds for payment towards participation or study-related injury. Faculty members with exposure to conducting clinical trials and with experience of more than 10 years had perceived a reduced degree of challenges.

Academic Clinical Trials Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee at a Tertiary Care Center: A Retrospective Analysis

Background The role of academia in clinical research has given rise to the concept of academic clinical trials (ACTs), which are vital in generating evidence. Through the implementation of the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules-2019 (NDCTR-2019) rules, the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) has obtained a quasi-regulatory role. The study aims to assess the challenges the IEC faced when processing, approving, and monitoring ACTs. The other objectives included the number of ACTs submitted to the IEC, as well as administrative, scientific, and ethical issues stated by the IEC and the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) authorities. We also aimed to provide some insight into the type of decision made by IEC and DCGI - the delay or inconsistency between the queries. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in the IEC of a tertiary care hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. A comprehensive search of the IEC database was carried out by the study team, and only those protocols of ACTs submitted to IEC between January 2015 and December 2021 were included. The studies submitted between January 2015 and February 2019, i.e., before the release of NDCTR-2019, were classified as the "Before" category. All subsequently submitted protocols were grouped together as the "After" group. Descriptive statistics were used to represent the data, while comparison between the two timeframes were made using the Mann-Whitney U test with a level of significance at 5%. Results This six-year study showed that merely 1.4% (34/2400) trials fulfilled the criteria of an ACT. An increase in the ACT protocol submission was noted in the "After" group (20 vs. 14). Most ACTs were drug trials, with 67.6% (23/34) trials conducted majorly in the Department of Anesthesiology. There was a statistical increase in time query reply by the principal investigator to IEC and the time between submission and approval in the "After" group (p<0.05). IEC sent out 94 administrative, 565 scientific, and 216 ethical queries. On IEC monitoring, protocol deviations were noted; nonetheless, no ACTs reported protocol deviations or serious adverse events. Conclusions Since the implementation of NDCTR-2019, IEC has taken on a quasi-regulatory function, and there has been an increase in the caliber of IEC monitoring and adherence to ethical norms.

Investigator knowledge, awareness, and registrations of academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Registry of India: An observational study

Introduction

In 2019, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) introduced the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 (NDCTR), which separated the research guidelines for "Clinical Trials" and "Biomedical and Health Research." As a result, guidelines issued by Indian Council of Medical Research were stated to apply to academic clinical trials (ACTs). This change is important because academic studies are crucial for scientific advancement and repurposing of approved drugs in health-care industry. However, conducting an ACT can pose challenges. We assessed the level of awareness, knowledge, and challenges faced by investigators. Our aim is to overcome some of these challenges and encourage more academic studies for the betterment of healthcare and scientific knowledge in India.

Methodology

The study was conducted in two phases after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (EC) of three tertiary care hospitals in Mumbai. In the first phase, the number of ACTs was assessed from the clinical trial registry India website, while the number of registered and re-registered ECs were assessed from the CDSCO website. The second phase involved assessing investigator awareness and knowledge about ACTs using a prevalidated questionnaire with a content validity index score of 0.93.

Results

In 2020, the highest numbers of studies were registered, with the highest numbers of registered and re-registered ECs from Maharashtra. All participants completed the questionnaire and were aware of the need to follow guidelines for clinical trials. Sixty-seven percent of participants knew that the guidelines for ACTs differed from those of sponsored clinical trials, but only 58% were aware of the exact definition of an ACT as per NDCTR, 2019. Eighty-five percent of participants knew who could initiate an ACT, but only 27% knew about the applicability of results of an ACT and 33% had in-depth knowledge about the required approvals, while only 10% knew the archival period. Although 71% of participants had knowledge about serious adverse event reporting, few answered in-depth questions correctly. Only 31 participants reported facing varied challenges.

Conclusion

To conduct ACTs effectively and contribute to healthcare and scientific advancement, it is crucial to enhance investigators' existing knowledge about ACTs.

Efficacy of Cerebrolysin Treatment as an Add-On Therapy to Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Due to Large Vessel Occlusion: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Open Label, Single-Center Study With 12 Months of Follow-Up

This study is designed to determine the efficacy of Cerebrolysin treatment as an add-on therapy to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in reducing global disability in subjects with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We have planned a single center, prospective, open-label, single-arm study with a 12-month follow-up of 50 patients with moderate to severe AIS, with a small established infarct core and with good collateral circulation who achieve significant reperfusion following MT and who receive additional Cerebrolysin within 8 h of stroke onset compared to 50 historical controls treated with MT alone, matched for age, clinical severity, occlusion location, baseline perfusion lesion volume, onset to reperfusion time, and use of iv thrombolytic therapy. The primary outcome measure will be the overall proportion of subjects receiving Cerebrolysin compared to the control group experiencing a favorable functional outcome (by modified Rankin Scale 0-2) at 90 days, following stroke onset. The secondary objectives are to determine the efficacy of Cerebrolysin as compared to the control group in reducing the risk of symptomatic secondary hemorrhagic transformation, improving neurological outcomes (NIHSS 0-2 at day 7, day 30, and 90), reducing mortality rates (over the 90-day and 12 months study period), and improving: activities of daily living (by Barthel Index), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) assessed at day 30, 90, and at 12 months. The other measures of efficacy in the Cerebrolysin group will include: assessment of final stroke volume and penumbral salvage (measured by CT/CTP at 30 days) and its change compared to baseline volume, changes over time in language function (by the 15-item Boston Naming Test), hemispatial neglect (by line bisection test), global cognitive function (by The Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and depression (by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) between day 30 and day 90 assessments). The patients will receive 30 ml of Cerebrolysin within 8 h of AIS stroke onset and continue treatment once daily until day 21 (first cycle) and they will receive a second cycle of treatment (30 ml/d for 21 days given in the Outpatient Department or Neurorehabilitation Clinic) from day 69 to 90.