scholarly journals TRIALRESULTS-CENTER: A WEB-BASED CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS DATABASE PROVIDING DYNAMIC SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL TRIALS IN CARDIOLOGY

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. A132.E1239
Author(s):  
Michel Cucherat
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

scholarly journals Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 2

2017 ◽  
Vol 181 (8) ◽  
pp. 198-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Lees ◽  
L. Pelligand ◽  
M. Whiting ◽  
D. Chambers ◽  
P-L. Toutain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mechanisms Of Action ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Veterinary Drugs ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

Part 2 of this narrative review outlines the theoretical and practical bases for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of conventional medicines and homeopathic products. Known and postulated mechanisms of action are critically reviewed. The evidence for clinical efficacy of products in both categories, in the form of practitioner experience, meta-analysis and systematic reviews of clinical trial results, is discussed. The review also addresses problems and pitfalls in assessing data, and the ethical and negative aspects of pharmacology and homeopathy in veterinary medicine.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19: Syntheses, Mechanism of Infection and Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subha Sankar Paul ◽  
Goutam Biswas
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Molecule ◽  
Mode Of Action ◽  
Antiviral Drugs ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

: COVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern. Although, considerable knowledge has been acquired with time about the viral mechanism of infection and mode of replication, yet no specific drugs or vaccines have been discovered against SARS-CoV-2, till date. There are few small molecule antiviral drugs like Remdesivir and Favipiravir which have shown promising results in different advanced stage of clinical trials. Chloroquinine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Lopinavir-Ritonavir combination, although initially was hypothesized to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, are now discontinued from the solidarity clinical trials. This review provides a brief description of their chemical syntheses along with their mode of action and clinical trial results available in Google and different peer reviewed journals till 24th October 2020.

scholarly journals The Disclosure Decision of Foreign Clinical Trials in China: Moderating Effects of Firms’ Contingencies

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402110163
Author(s):  
Tariq H. Malik ◽  
Chunhui Huo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Moderating Effects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industrial Enterprises ◽  
Unit Increase ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
Clinical Trial Activity

Result disclosure of clinical trial posts a conflicting logic between private secrecy and public interest. Despite ethical and legal requirements for disclosing clinical trial results, clinical trials’ sponsors tend to withhold the results. We explored the location, timing, and rationale behind the withheld clinical trial results. Based on the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) perspective, we propose that organizational EO contingencies moderate the disclosure decision. We used the completed clinical trial projects in China by foreign and domestic sponsors. First, we found that a unit increase in the sponsor’s experience can increase the disclosure about 1.01 times. Second, we found that industrial enterprises disclose results about 3.7 times more than universities do. Third, we found that foreign clinical trial projects in China tend to disclose 3.9 times more than domestic projects. We link these findings to two types of audience. First, we inform the academic community on the theory and empirics regarding risk-taking behavior in the biopharmaceutical industry’s clinical trial activity. Second, we address the general audiences concerned about the ethical and socioeconomic wellbeing of the public.

scholarly journals Random-effects meta-analysis for systematic reviews of phase I clinical trials: Rare events and missing data

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Ok Kim ◽  
Xia Wang ◽  
Chunyan Liu ◽  
Kathleen Dorris ◽  
Maryam Fouladi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Missing Data ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Rare Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Adwoa Parker ◽  
Jennifer A Hirst ◽  
Alan Chant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

scholarly journals Awareness and Opinions of Research Professionals on India's New Drug and Clinical Trials Regulations: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study

10.2196/14744 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e14744
Author(s):  
Vishal Vennu ◽  
Saurabh Dahiya
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Research Professionals

Background Although several studies have been conducted and several articles have been published on India's new clinical trial regulations, very few have examined the views of investigators and ethics board members regarding modifications to the previous regulations. Overall, they have neglected to find out the opinions of other relevant professionals, such as research assistants, coordinators, associates, and managers. To our knowledge, no study has yet investigated the awareness and opinions of Indian research professionals on the new 2019 regulations. Objective This study aims to describe the awareness and opinions of Indian research professionals on the new drug and clinical trial regulations. Methods In this cross-sectional, Web-based study, we will conduct an open survey for various Indian research professionals. These professionals will be selected randomly using multiple sources. The survey questionnaires, which have already been validated, were developed using the form function in Google docs. A Web link was generated for participants to take the survey. Descriptive statistics will be shown as means and standard deviations for constant variables, whereas certain variables will instead be shown as numbers and percentages. Results The survey was opened in July 2019. Enrollment has already started and will be completed in three months. The results calculations are expected to begin in October 2019. Conclusions The results of the survey are expected to represent the views of research professionals on the new regulations that will support the development of clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry in India. These regulations are expected to help advance clinical trials, help with the approval of new drugs, and enhance ethical norms in the country. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/14744

scholarly journals Patient Income Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 536-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Kathy S. Albain ◽  
Carol M. Moinpour ◽  
Judith A. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. Patients and Methods We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. Results From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). Conclusion Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document