Investigator-Initiated IBD Trials in the United States: Facts, Obstacles, and Answers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Herfarth HH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5177501 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Investigator-Initiated IBD Trials in the United States: Facts, Obstacles, and Answers.
Herfarth Hans H HH Jackson Susan S Schliebe Barbara G BG Martin Christopher C Ivanova Anastasia A Anton Kristen K Sandler Robert S RS Long Millie D MD Isaacs Kim L KL Osterman Mark T MT Sands Bruce E BE Higgins Peter D PD Lewis James D JD
Inflammatory bowel diseases 20170101 1
Investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials are the backbone of academic clinical research. Investigator-initiated trials (IITs) complement the large clinical studies sponsored by industry and address questions, which are usually not the main focus of a commercially directed research but have the purpose to confirm, improve, or refute clinically important questions with regard to diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in patient care. The aim of this review is to illustrate the necessary st ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:An inherent challenge to clinical trials that aim to test the efficacy of experimental therapeutics for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is the relative rarity of the disease. A promising solution to this problem is a multi-center approach that ideally includes sites distributed across a broad geographic area. In support of such an approach, the European E-RARE program and the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) partnered to support the investigator-initiated ROCK-ALS trial (Eudra-CT-Nr.: 2017-003676-31, NCT03792490) as a multi-national collaboration between centers in Europe and North America that is led by European investigators. During the set-up of this international trial, however, a number of unanticipated legal, administrative, and financial complexities emerged that required significant adaptation of the proposed trial scheme. Here, we report our experience navigating these obstacles and describe the potential solutions that we explored. Our experience may inform future efforts to implement multi-national investigator-initiated trials that involve both European and United States centers.
| S-EPMC8289747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcademic/institutional investigator-initiated clinical trials benefit individuals and society by supplementing gaps in industry-sponsored clinical trials.MaterialsIn 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsTo 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.
| S-EPMC3501232 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5939385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Experimental therapeutic oncology agents are often combined to circumvent tumor resistance to individual agents. However, most combination trials fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to advance to a later phase. This study collected survey data on phase 1 combination therapy trials identified from ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2003 and November 30, 2017 to assess trial design and the progress of combinations toward regulatory approval. Online surveys (N = 289, 23 questions total) were emailed to Principal Investigators (PIs) of early-phase National Cancer Institute and/or industry trials; 263 emails (91%) were received and 113 surveys completed (43%). Among phase 1 combination trials, 24.9% (95%CI: 15.3%, 34.4%) progressed to phase 2 or further; 18.7% (95%CI: 5.90%, 31.4%) progressed to phase 3 or regulatory approval; and 12.4% (95%CI: 0.00%, 25.5%) achieved regulatory approval. Observations of "clinical promise" in phase 1 combination studies were associated with higher rates of advancement past each milestone toward regulatory approval (cumulative OR = 11.9; p = 0.0002). Phase 1 combination study designs were concordant with Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) Recommendations 79.6% of the time (95%CI: 72.2%, 87.1%). Most discordances occurred where no plausible pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions were expected. Investigator-defined "clinical promise" of a combination is associated with progress toward regulatory approval. Although concordance between study designs of phase 1 combination trials and CTD-TF Recommendations was relatively high, it may be beneficial to raise awareness about the best study design to use when no plausible pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions are expected.
| S-EPMC6558040 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8406615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interventional clinical studies can provide the highest levels of evidence and generate significant results on specific investigational medicinal products or medical devices. In order to have powerful studies, attain unquestionable results and make significant discoveries, the number of patients enrolled must be high. Therefore, multinational, randomised clinical trials are necessary. The multicentre, multinational recruitment of subjects in investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) increases their logistical burden, justifying the need for specific infrastructures to ease implementation. Herein, we provide for the first time an overview of the facts and figures concerning IICTs, existing infrastructures' capacity for interventional clinical research, and scientific performance of investigators in a European country, Portugal. We aim to highlight the relevance and need for investing in European infrastructures such as the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) for multinational IICTs. A public, non-profit organisation, ECRIN facilitates the conduct of multinational clinical trials in Europe by coordinating scientific partners and their networks, and providing advice, management services and tools to enhance collaboration. Currently in Portugal, few multinational randomised IICTs are coordinated by national investigators. This is most likely due to the lack of human resources dedicated to clinical trials in clinical research centres (CRCs) as well as the scarcity of professional academic clinical trial units (CTUs) providing logistics and management services at non-profit rates. With the data shown, we expect to trigger the development of similar studies in other European countries and stress the impact of government support for IICTs.
| S-EPMC5935898 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to identify the sources of funding for investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) in Portugal, and to recommend ways to improve the quality of information collected from clinical trial databases about funding.Design and methodsA systematic search of trial registrations over the last 13 years-using the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and four clinical trials registries (CTRs)-was carried out to identify IICTs in Portugal, used as a case study. Data from the databases were compared with data contained in publications to evaluate the consistency of information on funding sources. The term 'database' is used in this study to refer to both the WHO-ICTRP and the CTRs. When mentioned separately, the WHO-ICTRP is referred to as a 'platform', while the CTRs are referred to as 'registries'.OutcomeSuggestions to improve clinical trials databases to clearly identify the funding sources and data ownership in IICTs.ResultsTwo hundred and eighty-two IICTs were identified in Portugal. Twenty per cent of trials were supported by industry with unclear information on the ownership of the results. Inaccuracy was found in the information about sponsors and funders. The information about funding in all resulting publications (77 out of 133 completed studies) was also inconsistent between databases in 35 out of 77 (45%) of the studies. Notably, 23% of the trials funded by non-profit organisations (n=226) received funds from international and/or national funding agencies.ConclusionsIdentification of IICT funding and ownership of results is unclear in the databases used for this study, which may lead to misunderstandings about the independence of the obtained results. Transparency and accuracy are desirable so that public decision makers and strategic partners can accurately evaluate national performance in this particular type of clinical research.
| S-EPMC6530385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Investigator-initiated trials (IIT) are important aspects of medical research and have contributed substantially to modern oncology. IIT using post-approval drugs have been conducted by domestic institutions in Japan. Data from the present study were obtained by all IIT registered clinical trials for five cancers (lung, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer) using drugs approved from 1999 to 2009 in Japan. Kaplan-Meier method, analysis of variance (anova), and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to estimate time to enrolment completion (TTEC) and time to enrolment per patient (TTEP). Of 1222 trials eligible for analysis, 465 trials (38%) completed enrolment to the studies, and 203 trials (17%) published results. In the distribution according to trial phase, 98 (8%) were phase I, 1058 (87%) were phase I/II + II, and 66 (5%) were phase II/III + III. Accrual achievement and publication rates were higher in late-phase than in early-phase trials. Median TTEC was 1387 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1302-1472). Median TTEP was 38.5 days (95% CI, 34.5-42.5). The median TTEC and TTEP were significantly different in each trial phase (P < 0.01), funding source (P < 0.01), and publication status (median TTEC published trials versus unpublished trial; 720 days vs 1672 days, median TTEP; 16 days vs 55.8 days; P < 0.001). Many IIT using approved cancer drugs have been conducted; however, the quality of the clinical trials was low in terms of accrual achievement, publication rate, and time to publication of trial results.
| S-EPMC5448621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC7532587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is an aggressive hematological malignancy characterized by an uncontrolled clonal proliferation of plasma cells (PCs) in the bone marrow and peripheral blood. PCL has been defined by an absolute number of circulating PCs exceeding 2.0 × 109/L and/or >20% PCs in the total leucocyte count. It is classified as primary PCL, which develops de novo, and secondary PCL, occurring at the late and advanced stages of multiple myeloma (MM). Primary and secondary PCL are clinically and biologically two distinct entities. After the diagnosis, treatment should be immediate and should include a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator-based combination regimens as induction, followed by stem cell transplantation (SCT) in transplant-eligible individuals who have cleared the peripheral blood of circulating PCs. Due to the rarity of the condition, there have been very few clinical trials. Furthermore, virtually all of the myeloma trials exclude patients with active PCL. The evaluation of response has been defined by the International Myeloma Working Group and consists of both acute leukemia and MM criteria. With conventional chemotherapy, the prognosis of primary PCL has been ominous, with reported overall survival (OS) ranging from 6.8 to 12.6 months. The use of novel agents and autologous SCT appears to be associated with deeper response and an improved survival, although it still remains low. The PCL prognostic index provides a simple score to risk-stratify PCL. The prognosis of secondary PCL is extremely poor, with OS of only 1 month.
| S-EPMC8432408 | biostudies-literature