Dataset Information

International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Academic/institutional investigator-initiated clinical trials benefit individuals and society by supplementing gaps in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Materials

In May 2010, experts from Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK, and the United States, met at a symposium in Tokyo, Japan, to discuss how policies related to the conduct of clinical trials, which have been shown to be effective, may be applied to other regions of the world.

Results

In order to increase the availability of anticancer drugs world-wide, nations including Japan should examine the benefits of increasing the number of investigator-initiated clinical trials. These trials represent one of the most effective ways to translate basic scientific knowledge into clinical practice. These trials should be conducted under GCP guidelines and include Investigational New Drug application submissions with the ultimate goal of future drug approval.

Conclusions

To maximize the effectiveness of these trials, a policy to educate health care professionals, cancer patients and their families, and the public in general on the benefits of clinical trials should be strengthened. Finally, policies that expedite the clinical development of novel cancer drugs which have already been shown to be effective in other countries are needed in many nations including Japan to accelerate drug approval.

SUBMITTER: Trimble EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3501232 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan.

Trimble E L EL Ledermann J J Law K K Miyata T T Imamura C K CK Nam B-H BH Kim Y H YH Bang Y-J YJ Michaels M M Ardron D D Amano S S Ando Y Y Tominaga T T Kurokawa K K Takebe N N

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20120725 12

<h4>Background</h4>Academic/institutional investigator-initiated clinical trials benefit individuals and society by supplementing gaps in industry-sponsored clinical trials.<h4>Materials</h4>In May 2010, experts from Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK, and the United States, met at a symposium in Tokyo, Japan, to discuss how policies related to the conduct of clinical trials, which have been shown to be effective, may be applied to other regions of the world.<h4>Results</h4>In order to increas ...[more]

PMID: 22843420

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:In children many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed off-label due to a lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a multicenter RCT in the Netherlands to compare levetiracetam and valproic acid as monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 2 years, we had to stop this investigator-initiated trial prematurely because the inclusion rate was too low. We analyzed the reasons for this failure, assessed the various issues involved in performing RCTs in children, and now give recommendations for future studies. Methods:A questionnaire was completed by all investigators involved in the study. It included questions about the motivation to participate and the perceived reasons for recruitment failure. We also studied literature about financial, logistic, legal, and ethical aspects of RCTs in children. Results:Main reasons for recruitment failure were overestimation of the number of eligible AED-naive children referred by general pediatricians; personal preferences of investigators for specific antiepileptic drugs; and the extensive administrative load due to extra regulations and guidelines for children. Fundraising for investigator-initiated trials is difficult and the majority of RCTs concerning AEDs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Involving children requires balancing between protection and participation; the randomization procedure and obtaining informed consent are complex for both children and parents. Significance:Performing RCTs with AEDs in children is important but complicated by logistic, regulatory, legal, and ethical restrictions. Based on our recent experience, our advice to colleagues who are planning a similar trial would be to perform a feasibility pilot study; to set up intensive collaboration with referring pediatricians; to arrange support of a clinical trials unit and a local research nurse during the complete trial period; and to incorporate the possibility of extending the recruitment period. Major investments, both financially from governmental organizations and in time, are imperative for independent RCTs in children.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

Project description:Background The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial’s impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort. Methods The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG?/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov. Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication’s target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials. Results We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36). Conclusions The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

Project description:BackgroundInhibitor development is the most serious treatment-related complication of replacement coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) therapy for patients with haemophilia A. Immune tolerance induction (ITI), which involves intensive and prolonged treatment with plasma-derived or recombinant FVIII, is the only clinically proven strategy for eradication of inhibitors. The bispecific antibody emicizumab is approved for use in patients with and without inhibitors to prevent bleeding but does not eliminate inhibitors. MOTIVATE (www.motivate-study.com) aims to capture different approaches to the treatment and management of patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors, document current ITI approaches from real-world clinical experience, and evaluate the efficacy and safety of ITI, emicizumab prophylaxis and ITI with emicizumab prophylaxis.MethodsThe investigator-initiated MOTIVATE study [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04023019; EudraCT 2019-003427-38] will investigate in real-life clinical practice the management of patients with haemophilia A of any severity who have developed inhibitors to FVIII. All treatment is at the investigator's discretion. The following treatment approaches will be evaluated: Group 1 - ITI with Nuwiq®, octanate® or wilate® and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat bleeding episodes (BEs) or during surgery or for prophylaxis; Group 2 - ITI with Nuwiq®, octanate® or wilate® and emicizumab prophylaxis and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat BEs or during surgery; Group 3 - routine prophylaxis with emicizumab, aPCC or rFVIIa without ITI and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat BEs or during surgery. Patients will not be randomised to a treatment group and may change groups during the study.ConclusionsIt is planned to enrol 120 patients who will be followed for up to 5 years. Optional sub-studies will explore factors that may influence ITI results as well as the impact of different treatment approaches on important aspects of patient health, including joint and bone health and the risk of thrombotic events.

Dataset Information

International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan.

Background

Materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets