Dataset Information

Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since the site of human subjects research has public health, regulatory, ethical, economic, and social implications, we sought to determine the global distribution and migration of clinical research using an open-access trial registry.

Methods

We obtained individual clinical trial data including location of trial sites, dates of operation, funding source (United States government, pharmaceutical industry, or organization), and clinical study phase (1, 1/2, 2, 2/3, or 3) from ClinicalTrials.gov. We used the World Bank's classification of each country's economic development status ["High Income and a Member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)", "High Income and Non-Member of the OECD", "Upper-Middle Income", "Lower-Middle Income", or "Low Income"] and United Nations Populations Division data for country-specific population estimates. We analyzed data from calendar year 2006 through 2012 by number of clinical trial sites, cumulative trial site-years, trial density (trial site-years/106 population), and annual growth rate (%) for each country, and by development category, funding source, and clinical study phase.

Results

Over a 7-year period, 89,647 clinical trials operated 784,585 trial sites in 175 countries, contributing 2,443,850 trial site-years. Among those, 652,200 trial sites (83%) were in 25 high-income OECD countries, while 37,195 sites (5%) were in 91 lower-middle or low-income countries. Trial density (trial site-years/106 population) was 540 in the United States, 202 among other high-income OECD countries (excluding the United States), 81 among high-income non-OECD countries, 41 among upper-middle income countries, 5 among lower-middle income countries, and 2 among low-income countries. Annual compound growth rate was positive (ranging from 0.8% among low-income countries to 14.7% among lower-middle income countries) among all economic groups, except the United States (-0.5%). Overall, 29,191 trials (33%) were funded by industry, 4,059 (5%) were funded by the United States government, and 56,397 (63%) were funded by organizations. Countries with emerging economies (low- and middle-income) operated 19% of phase 3 trial sites, as compared to only 6% of phase 1 trial sites.

Conclusion

Human clinical research remains concentrated in high-income countries, but operational clinical trial sites, particularly for phase 3 trials, may be migrating to low- and middle-income countries with emerging economies.

SUBMITTER: Drain PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5830297 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration.

Drain Paul K PK Parker Robert A RA Robine Marion M Holmes King K KK Bassett Ingrid V IV

PloS one 20180228 2

<h4>Background</h4>Since the site of human subjects research has public health, regulatory, ethical, economic, and social implications, we sought to determine the global distribution and migration of clinical research using an open-access trial registry.<h4>Methods</h4>We obtained individual clinical trial data including location of trial sites, dates of operation, funding source (United States government, pharmaceutical industry, or organization), and clinical study phase (1, 1/2, 2, 2/3, or 3) ...[more]

PMID: 29489839

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration.Design and settingWe included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020.MethodsWe extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators.ResultsOf 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%).ConclusionsIn Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected health care systems and dialysis access care in the US and across the globe. Beyond the initial challenges posed by the pandemic and despite the actions taken by health care leaders/organizations/professional societies such as the "Maintaining Lifelines for ESKD Patients" joint statement, there continues to be delays in providing timely care and performing elective and emergent dialysis access procedures worldwide. The aim of this study was to assess the global challenges associated with providing dialysis vascular access care across the international vascular access community during the pandemic.MethodsThe American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN) conducted an online survey in 2021, that was administered to an expert panel of dialysis vascular access specialists and global leaders spanning across the international community. The respondents who are members of ASDIN, Association of Vascular Access and InTerventionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR), Asia Pacific Society of Dialysis Access (APSDA), Peruvian Vascular Access Society (APDAV), and Australia/New Zealand Society of Interventional Nephrology (ANZSIN) reported their experiences in the care of dialysis vascular access, practice patterns, and challenges faced during the COVID pandemic.ResultsOf the 53 individual surveys sent, 16 were opened and 11 (69%) responses were received from across the world and from different practice settings. The survey revealed the continued challenges facing the international community, the stark disparities in care delivery, supply chain disruption and logistical, regulatory, and financial issues that the global community continues to face in the ongoing pandemic.ConclusionsThe COVID19 pandemic is far from over, and the challenges and barriers to providing dialysis access care seen on the initial ASDIN survey in the US seem to extend across the globe. We describe those results and discuss options, opportunities, and innovative tools to provide dialysis and access care during these trying times.

Project description:The investigational NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor pevonedistat is being evaluated in combination with azacitidine versus single-agent azacitidine in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (higher-risk MDS), higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (higher-risk CMML), or low-blast acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a Phase 3 trial PANTHER. To support Asia-inclusive global development, we applied multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) principles of the International Conference on Harmonisation E17 guidelines by evaluating similarity in drug-related and disease-related intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A PubMed literature review (January 2000-November 2019) supported similarity in epidemiology of higher-risk MDS, AML, and CMML in Western and East Asian populations. Furthermore, the treatment of MDS/AML was similar in both East Asian and Western regions, with the same dose of azacitidine being the standard of care. Median overall survival in MDS following azacitidine treatment was generally comparable across regions, and the types and frequencies of molecular alterations in AML and MDS were comparable. Dose-escalation studies established the same maximum tolerated dose of pevonedistat in combination with azacitidine in Western and East Asian populations. Pevonedistat clearance was similar across races. Taken together, conservation of drug-related and disease-related intrinsic and extrinsic factors supported design of an Asia-inclusive Phase 3 trial and a pooled East Asian region. A sample size of ~ 30 East Asian patients (of ~ 450 randomized) was estimated as needed to demonstrate consistency in efficacy relative to the global population. This analysis is presented as an exemplar to illustrate application of clinical pharmacology and translational science principles in designing Asia-inclusive MRCTs. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Azacitidine is the standard of care for myelodysplastic syndromes/low-blast acute myeloid leukemia (AML) across Western and East Asian patients. The first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme, pevonedistat, has been investigated as a single agent in multiple studies of hematologic and nonhematologic malignancies and in combination with azacitidine in elderly patients with untreated AML. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? By applying clinical pharmacology and translational science and International Conference on Harmonisation E17 principles, this study designed an East Asian-inclusive global pivotal Phase 3 trial of pevonedistat, taking into consideration drug-related and disease-related intrinsic and extrinsic factors. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? These analyses provide scientific rationale for Asia-inclusive globalization of the pivotal, Phase 3 PANTHER trial and for pooling clinical data across the East Asian region for assessing consistency in efficacy. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? We developed a framework to facilitate efficient global clinical development of investigational therapies for rare cancers and orphan diseases in Asia-inclusive multiregional clinical trials.

Project description:IntroductionDespite intense interest in trial registration, there is a wide gap between theoretical postulates on trial registration and its implementation worldwide.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate trialists views about current international guidelines on trial registration, including the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) policies and the Ottawa Statement, as well as their intention to register any future clinical trials they conduct.MethodsWe identified all 40,158 PUBMED-indexed clinical trials published from May 2005 to May 2006 using an advanced search strategy. From a random sample of 500 confirmed clinical trials, corresponding authors with e-mail contact addresses were surveyed.ResultsA total of 275 (60%) questionnaires from 45 countries were completed. 31% of the respondents had received only nonindustry funding during the past ten years, while 5% and 61% had received only industry or mixed funding respectively. Approximately two third of participants supported registration of all 20 WHO Data Set items, and endorsed the Ottawa Statement part 1 and part 2. Delayed public disclosure of some essential data in instances where they may be considered sensitive for competitive commercial reasons was supported by 30% of the participants, whereas immediate disclosure was supported by 53%. Only 21% of participants had registered all of their ongoing trials since 2005, while 47% stated that they would provide the 20 WHO Data Set items to a publicly accessible register for all their future clinical trials; a significantly higher proportion of participants who received only nonindustry funding (62%) was found among those who would always provide the 20 WHO items for future trials, compared to 42% of participants who received mixed or only industry funding. Among those who were undecided about endorsing registration. One third of participants expressed a lack of sufficient knowledge as the primary reason.ConclusionAlthough disagreement was apparent on certain issues, our findings illustrate that trial registration is gradually becoming part of the current research paradigm internationally. Our results also suggest that researchers require more knowledge to inform their decision to comply with the International standards at this early stage of voluntary trial registration.

Dataset Information

Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets