Dataset Information

Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Clinical trials provide one of the highest levels of evidence to support medical practice. Investigator initiated clinical trials (IICTs) answer relevant questions in clinical practice that may not be addressed by industry. For the first time, two European Countries are compared in terms of IICTs, respective funders and publications, envisaging to inspire others to use similar indicators to assess clinical research outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective systematic search of registered IICTs from 2004 to 2017, using four clinical trials registries was carried out in two European countries with similar population, GDP, HDI and medical schools but with different governmental models to fund clinical research. Each IICT was screened for sponsors, funders, type of intervention and associated publications, once completed.

Results

IICTs involving the Czech Republic and Portugal were n = 439 (42% with hospitals as sponsors) and n = 328 (47% with universities as sponsors), respectively. The Czech Republic and Portuguese funding agencies supported respectively 61 and 27 IICTs. Among these, trials with medicinal products represent 52% in Czech Republic and 4% in Portugal. In the first, a higher percentage of IICTs' publications in high impact factor journals with national investigators as authors was observed, when compared to Portugal (75% vs 15%).

Conclusion

The better performance in clinical research by Czech Republic might be related to the existence of specific and periodic funding for clinical research, although further data are still needed to confirm this relationship. In upcoming years, the indicators used herein might be useful to tracking clinical research outcomes in these and other European countries.

SUBMITTER: Madeira C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8332583 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) are an essential method of evaluating health care interventions and a cornerstone for evidence-based health care. However, RCTs have become increasingly complex and costly, which is particularly challenging for independent investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs). IICTs have an essential role in clinical research, and it is important that efforts are made to ensure IICTs are adequately funded and are conducted cost-effectively.ObjectiveTo examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management.Design, setting, and participantsFor this qualitative study, interviews were conducted in Switzerland between February and August 2020. The purposive sample comprised 48 stakeholders from 4 different groups: primary investigators (n = 27), funders and sponsors (n = 9), clinical trial support organizations (n = 6), and ethics committee members (n = 6).Main outcomes and measuresPractices and attitudes of stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management were assessed using individual semistructured qualitative interviews. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.ResultsAfter interviews with 48 IICT stakeholders (75% male presenting), these participants identified a systemic problem of IICTs being underfunded, which can lead to compromises being made regarding the quality and conduct of IICTs. Participants identified 2 overarching and interconnected groups of reasons why IICTs in Switzerland are regularly underfunded. First, it was reported that IICT budget estimations are often inaccurate because of poor planning and preparation, unforeseeable events, investigators intentionally underestimating budgets, and limited budget assessment and oversight. Second, with the exception of a specific IICT funding program by the Swiss National Science Foundation, it was reported that limited funding sources and unrealistic expectation of funders led to underlying challenges in getting IICTs fully funded. A number of measures that could help reduce the underfunding of IICTs were identified, including improving the support of investigators and IICTs, strengthening networking and guidance, harmonizing and simplifying bureaucracy, and increasing public funding of IICTs.Conclusions and relevanceThis study highlights the inadequate expertise of Swiss stakeholders to correctly, systematically, and reproducibly calculate RCT budgets and the need for transparency on trial costs as well as training in budgeting practices. Limited financial resources for academic clinical research and issues regarding the professional planning and conduct of IICTs are persistent issues that many other countries also face.

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.