Dataset Information

One and done: Reasons principal investigators conduct only one FDA-regulated drug trial.

ABSTRACT: Concerns have been raised over the high turnover rate for clinical investigators. Using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bioresearch Monitoring Information System database, we conducted an online survey to identify factors that affect principal investigators' (PIs) decisions to conduct only a single FDA-regulated drug trial. Of the 201 PIs who responded, 54.2% were classified as "one-and-done." Among these investigators, 28.9% decided for personal reasons to not conduct another trial, and 44.4% were interested in conducting another trial, but no opportunities were available. Three categories of broad barriers were identified as generally burdensome or challenging by the majority of investigators: 1) workload balance (balancing trial implementation with other work obligations and opportunities) (63.8%); 2) time requirements (time to initiate and implement trial; investigator and staff time) (63.4%); and 3) data and safety reporting (56.5%). Additionally, 46.0% of investigators reported being generally unsatisfied with finance-related issues. These same top three barriers also affected investigators' decisions to no longer conduct FDA-regulated trials. Our findings illuminate three key aspects of investigator turnover. First, they confirm that investigator turnover occurs, as more than half of respondents were truly "one-and-done." Second, because a large proportion of respondents wanted to conduct more FDA-regulated trials but lacked opportunities to do so, mechanisms that match interested investigators with research sponsors are needed. Third, by focusing on the barriers we identified that affected investigators' decisions to no longer conduct FDA-regulated trials, future efforts to reduce investigator turnover can target issues that matter the most to investigators.

SUBMITTER: Corneli A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5936741 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One and done: Reasons principal investigators conduct only one FDA-regulated drug trial.

Corneli Amy A Pierre Christine C Hinkley Terri T Lin Li L Fordyce Christopher B CB Hamre Gerrit G Roe Matthew T MT

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20170308

Concerns have been raised over the high turnover rate for clinical investigators. Using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bioresearch Monitoring Information System database, we conducted an online survey to identify factors that affect principal investigators' (PIs) decisions to conduct only a single FDA-regulated drug trial. Of the 201 PIs who responded, 54.2% were classified as "one-and-done." Among these investigators, 28.9% decided for personal reasons to not conduct another tria ...[more]

PMID: 29740635

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

Project description:IMPACT-AFib was an 80,000-patient randomized clinical trial implemented by five US insurance companies (health plans) aimed at increasing the use of oral anticoagulants by individuals with atrial fibrillation who were at high risk of stroke and not on treatment. The underlying thesis was that patients could be change agents to initiate prescribing discussions with their providers. We tested the effect of mailing information to both patients and their providers. We used administrative medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data to identify eligible patients, to randomize them to an early or delayed intervention, and to assess clinical outcomes. The core data were analysis-ready datasets each site had created and curated for the FDA's Sentinel System, supplemented by updated "fresh" pharmacy and enrollment data to ensure eligibility at the time of intervention. Following mutually agreed upon procedures, sites linked to additional internal source data to implement the intervention-educational information mailed to patients and their providers in the early intervention arm, and to providers of patients in the delayed intervention arm approximately 12 months later. The primary analysis compares the early intervention arm to the delayed intervention arm, prior to the delayed intervention being conducted (i.e. compares intervention to non-intervention). The endpoints of interest were evidence of initiation of anticoagulation (primary) as well as clinical endpoints, including stroke and hospitalization for bleeding. Major challenges, some unanticipated, identified during the planning phase include convening multi-stakeholder investigator teams and advisors, addressing ethical concerns about not intervening in a usual care comparison group, and identifying and avoiding interference with sites' routine programs that were similar to the intervention. Needs and challenges during the implementation phase included the fact that even limited site-specific programming greatly increased time and effort, the need to refresh research data extracts immediately before outreach to patients and providers, potential difficulty identifying low-cost medications such as warfarin that may not be reimbursed by health plans and so not discoverable in dispensing data, the need to develop workarounds when "providers" in claims data were facilities, difficulty addressing clustering of patients by provider because providers can have multiple identifiers within and between health plans, and the need to anticipate loss to follow up because of health plan disenrollment or change in benefits. As pragmatic trials begin to shape evidence generation within clinical practice, investigators should anticipate issues inherent to claims data and working with multiple large sites. In IMPACT-AFib, we found that investing in collaboration and communication among all parties throughout all phases of the study helped ensure common understanding, early identification of challenges, and streamlined actual implementation.

Dataset Information

One and done: Reasons principal investigators conduct only one FDA-regulated drug trial.

Publications

One and done: Reasons principal investigators conduct only one FDA-regulated drug trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets