Dataset Information

Regulatory delays in a multinational clinical stroke trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The initiation and conduct of randomised clinical trials are complicated by multiple barriers, including delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Quantitative data on the extent of the delays due to national or local review in randomised clinical trials is scarce.

Materials and methods

We assessed the times needed to obtain regulatory approval and to initiate a trial site for an academic, EU-funded, phase III, randomised clinical trial of pharmacological prevention of complications in patients with acute stroke in over 80 sites in nine European countries. The primary outcome was the time from the first submission to a regulatory authority to initiation of a trial site. Secondary outcomes included time needed to complete each individual preparatory requirement and the number of patients recruited by each site in the first 6 and 12 months.

Results

The median time from the first submission to a regulatory authority to initiation of a trial site was 784 days (IQR: 586-1102). The single most time-consuming step was the conclusion of a clinical trial agreement between the national coordinator and the trial site, which took a median of 194 days (IQR: 93-293). A longer time to site initiation was associated with a lower patient recruitment rate in the first six months after initiation (B = -0.002; p = 0.02).

Discussion

Conclusion

In this EU-funded clinical trial, approximately 26 months were needed to initiate a trial site for patient recruitment. The conclusion of a contract with a trial site was the most time-consuming activity. To simplify and speed up the process, we suggest that the level of detail of contracts for academic trials should be proportional to the risks and commercial interests of these trials.

SUBMITTER: de Jonge JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8370076 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals.Regional performance was compared using descriptive analysis for time to site opening, recruitment, quality of data and laboratory samples. Follow-up consisted of 10 visits (96 weeks), electronic data collection (EDC) within 7 days of a visit and serious adverse events (SAEs) reported within 24 hours of site awareness.Median days to site opening was 250 (188 to 266), ranging from 177 (158 to 200) (Australia) to 265 (205 to 270) (Europe). Median days to ethics and regulatory approval was 182 (120 to 241) and 218 (182 to 341) days, respectively. Within regions, time to approval ranged from 187 (91 to 205) days (Australia) to 276 (175 to 384) days (Europe). Time to first randomisation ranged from 282 (250 to 313) days (Australia) to 426 (420 to 433) days (North America). Recruitment was lower than forecasted in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America at 89%, 77%, 91% and 43%, respectively. The converse was true in Latin America where despite ethics, regulatory and contractual delays, recruitment was 104% of predicted. Median days to EDC was 7 (3 to 16), ranging from 3 (1 to 16) (Asia) to 13 (8 to 14) days (North America). Median days for initial SAE submission to sponsor was 6 (2 to 20), ranging from 4 (2 to 18) (Latin America) to 24 (5 to 46) days (Australia). Sites took longer to submit final reports, overall median of 28 (7 to 91) days, ranging from 7 days (Australia) to 67 (23 to 103) days (Europe).Population availability and time to ethics and regulatory approvals influence recruitment; therefore accurate feasibility assessments are critical to site selection. Time to ethics and regulatory approval may not limit site inclusion if compensated by rapid recruitment. Identifying potential delays and methods for reduction can decrease time and costs for sponsors.Clinical Trials.Gov identifier: NCT00335322. Date of registration: 8 June 2006.

Project description:Importance:The complete and timely dissemination of clinical trial data is essential to all fields of medicine, with delayed or incomplete data release having potentially deleterious effects on both patient care and scientific inquiry. While prior analyses have noted a substantial lag in the reporting of final clinical study results, we sought to refine these observations through use of a novel starting point for the measurement of dissemination delays: the date of a corporate press release regarding a phase 3 study's results. Objective:To measure the length of time elapsed between when a sponsor had results of study findings they deemed important to announce, and when the medical community had access to them. Design and Setting:Covering the years 2011 through 2016, we measured the delay from when 8 large pharmaceutical companies issued a press release announcing completed analyses of phase 3 clinical trials in oncology, and the public sharing of those results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal as found via PubMed or Google Scholar. Press releases announcing regulatory steps and presentation schedules for conferences were excluded, as were those announcing results from preclinical trials, follow-up analyses, and studies of supportive care therapies or various modes of infusion for the same therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Time to public dissemination of clinical trial data. Results:Of the 100 press releases in our sample, 70 (70%) reported positive results, but only 31 (31%) included the magnitude of study findings. Through the end of follow-up, 99 (99%) of press releases had an associated peer-reviewed publication, complete data posting to ClinicalTrials.gov, or both, with a median time to reporting of 300 days (95% CI, 263-348 days). Positive findings were reported more quickly than negative ones (median of 272; 95% CI, 211-318 days vs 407; 95% CI, 298-705 days; log-rank P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Even for the most pressing study findings, median publication delays approach 1 year. As publication delays hinder research progress and advancements in clinical care, policies that enable early preprint release or public posting of completed data analysis should be pursued.

Project description:BackgroundThe process of obtaining prior informed consent for experimental treatment does not fit well into the clinical reality of acute and intensive care. The therapeutic window of interventions is often short, which may reduce the validity of the consent and the rate of enrolled participants, to delay trial completion and reduce the external validity of the results. Deferred consent and 'opt-out' are alternative consent methods. The SafeBoosC-III trial was a randomised clinical trial investigating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring in extremely preterm infants during the first 3 days after birth, starting within the first 6 h after birth. Prior, deferred and opt-out consent were all allowed by protocol. This study aimed to evaluate the use of different consent methods in the SafeBoosC-III trial, Furthermore, we aimed to describe and analyse concerns or complaints that arose during the first 6 months of trial conduct.MethodsAll 70 principal investigators were invited to join this descriptive ancillary study. Each principal investigator received a questionnaire on the use of consent methods in their centre during the SafeBoosC-III trial, including the possibility to describe any concerns related to the consent methods used during the first 6 months of the trial, as raised by the parents or the clinical staff.ResultsData from 61 centres were available. In 43 centres, only prior informed consent was used: in seven, only deferred consent. No centres used the opt-out method only, but five centres used prior and deferred, five used prior, deferred and opt-out (all possibilities) and one used both deferred and opt-out. Six centres applied to use the opt-out method by their local research ethics committee but were denied using it. One centre applied to use deferred consent but was denied. There were only 23 registered concerns during the execution of the trial.ConclusionsConsent by opt-out was allowed by the protocol in this multinational trial but only a few investigators opted for it and some research ethics boards did not accept its use. It is likely to need promotion by the clinical research community to unfold its potential.