Dataset Information

Clinical research activities during COVID-19: the point of view of a promoter of academic clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 emergency, IRST IRCCS, an Italian cancer research institute and promoter of no profit clinical studies, adapted its activities and procedures as per European and national guidelines to maintain a high standard of clinical trials, uphold participant safety and guarantee the robustness and reliability of the data collected. This study presents the measures adopted by our institute with the aim of providing information that could be useful to other academic centers promoting clinical trials during the pandemic.

Main text

After an in-depth analysis of European and Italian guidelines and consultation and analysis of publications regarding the actions implemented by international no profit clinical trial promoters during the emergency, we monitored the way in which the institute managed clinical trials, verifying compliance with regulatory guidelines and clinical procedures, and evaluating screening and recruitment trends in studies. During the pandemic, our center activated a new clinical trial for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A number of procedural changes in clinical trials were also authorized through notified amendments, in accordance with Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) guidelines. Patient screening and enrolment was not interrupted in any site participating in multicenter interventional clinical trials on drugs. The institute provided clear indications about essential procedures to be followed, identifying those that could be postponed or carried out by telephone/teleconference. All external sites were monitored remotely, avoiding on-site visits. Although home-working was encouraged, the presence of staff in the central office was also guaranteed to ensure the continuity of promoter activities.

Conclusions

Some measures adopted by IRST could also be effective outside of the COVID-19 period, e.g. numerous activities relating to clinical trial management could be performed on a home-working basis, using suitable digital technologies. In the future, electronic medical records and shared guidelines will be essential for the correct identification and management of trial risks, including the protection of the rights and privacy of subjects taking part. Promoter supervision could be increased by implementing centralized monitoring tools to guarantee data quality. Closer collaboration between promoters and local study staff is needed to optimize trial management.

SUBMITTER: Valmorri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086972 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still "recruiting". PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.