scholarly journals Fair and equitable subject selection in concurrent COVID-19 clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-11
Author(s):  
Maud O. Jansen ◽  
Peter Angelos ◽  
Stephen J. Schrantz ◽  
Jessica S. Donington ◽  
Maria Lucia L. Madariaga ◽  
...  

Clinical trials emerged in rapid succession as the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for life-saving therapies. Fair and equitable subject selection in clinical trials offering investigational therapies ought to be an urgent moral concern. Subject selection determines the distribution of risks and benefits, and impacts the applicability of the study results for the larger population. While Research Ethics Committees monitor fair subject selection within each trial, no standard oversight exists for subject selection across multiple trials for the same disease. Drawing on the experience of multiple clinical trials at a single academic medical centre in the USA, we posit that concurrent COVID-19 trials are liable to unfair and inequitable subject selection on account of scientific uncertainty, lack of transparency, scarcity and, lastly, structural barriers to equity compounded by implicit bias. To address the critical gap in the current literature and international regulation, we propose new ethical guidelines for research design and conduct that bolsters fair and equitable subject selection. Although the proposed guidelines are tailored to the research design and protocol of concurrent trials in the COVID-19 pandemic, they may have broader relevance to single COVID-19 trials.

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Strech ◽  
Jasper Littmann ◽  

Background: For many years, studies have shown that the results of clinical trials are often published or reported selectively with a statistically significant bias in favour of positive trial results. Trial registration as a precondition for publication had only limited effects on current practice. Results of trials which were approved by research ethics committees (RECs) are often published only partially, with a substantial time lag or not at all. This study examined existing procedures of RECs in the European Union to monitor and prevent incomplete registration of trials and selective reporting of trial results. It further investigated opinions of REC members about the need to update current legislation on this matter. Methods: Web-based survey on members of RECs in 22 European countries. Results: Over 90 percent of respondents agreed that the incomplete publication of trial results had a strong or somewhat negative impact on public health and on healthcare professionals’ trust in the validity of clinical research, yet only 30 percent reported that their REC had some (often unsystematic) mechanism in place to check that findings of approved studies are published in some form. Less than 10 percent stated that their REC has further specific procedures in place to prevent or minimize selective reporting of study results. Respondents stated variously that their REC did not have the resources to follow up on this matter. Conclusions: The existing legislation to regulate trial registration and encourage complete publication of trial results leaves room for improvement. REC members welcome guidelines to adequately address both problems. The new Regulation EU No. 536/2014 as well as the FDA Amendment Act from 2007 require the reporting of summary results within 1 year after study end. As recent reviews demonstrated, without any systematic approach to monitor the adherence to these regulations, publication rates remain rather low.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Scahill ◽  
Catherine Lord

ABSTRACTThe goal of psychopharmacohgic research in autism is to provide guidance to clinicians and families on the risks and benefits of specific interventions. Careful subject selection and subject characterization in clinical trials are necessary for replication, to inform clinicians about the sample, and to elucidate the type of patients who might benefit from, the treatment. At minimum, subject characterization includes demographic information, diagnosis (autism, Åsperger's syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified), intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning, symptom severity, general behavioral profile, health status, pertinent clinical laboratory measures, height, weight, current treatments, and educational placements. Subject selection, sample size, and choice of the primary outcome measure are closely interrelated and linked to the study hypothesis. The magnitude of expected improvement on the primary outcome measure, which can be expressed by effect size, has direct implications for sample size. Large sample sizes are required to detect small effect sizes. To facilitate interpretation of study results, research reports should provide descriptive characteristics of the sample as well as the mean change and standard deviation on the primary outcome measure data to permit calculation of the effect size.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lida Feyz ◽  
Yale Wang ◽  
Atul Pathak ◽  
Manish Saxena ◽  
Felix Mahfoud ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Great and costly efforts are required to recruit potential participants into clinical trials. Using social media may make the recruitment process more efficient. Merely 20% of clinical trials are completed on time, a finding mostly linked to challenges in patient recruitment [1]. Recruitment through social media is increasingly being recognized as a tool to efficiently identify eligible subjects at lower costs [2, 3]. One of the key reasons for its success is the strong adherence of users to specific social media platforms. Facebook for instance has over 2.38 billion active monthly users of which about 75% access the network on a daily basis [4]. As such, the platform and other like it offer great potential to quickly and affordably enroll patients into clinical trials and surveys [3, 5-7]. At present, little evidence is available on the efficacy of using social media to recruit patients into cardiovascular and hypertension trials [8]. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of social media as an approach to recruit hypertensive patients into the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial. OBJECTIVE The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of social media as an approach to recruit hypertensive patients into the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial. METHODS The RADIANCE-HTN SOLO (NCT02649426) is a multicenter, randomised study that was designed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of endovascular ultrasound renal denervation (RDN) to reduce ambulatory blood pressure at 2 months in patients with combined systolic–diastolic hypertension in the absence of medications. Between March 28, 2016, and Dec 28, 2017, 803 patients were screened for eligibility and 146 were randomised to undergo RDN (n=74) or a sham procedure (n=72) [9]. Key entry criteria included: age 18-75 years with essential hypertension using 0-2 antihypertensive drugs. Patients were recruited from 21 hospitals in the USA and 18 hospitals in Europe. The study was approved by local ethics committees or institutional review boards and was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent. All recruitment materials including social media campaigns was approved by local ethics committees of the involved sites. Recruitment strategies included social media (Facebook), conventional advertisements (ads) (magazine, brochure/poster, radio, newspaper), web search (the clinical website, craigslist and web-browsing), and physician referral. Both newspaper ads and posters contained brief information about study entry criteria. Newspapers were distributed at public transport places and posters were displayed in outpatient cardiology and hypertension clinics. Radio ads were run for 30 or 60 seconds providing a short summary of the study, entry criteria and contact information. Ads were run in major metropolitan areas on radio stations with large adult listener bases during popular days and times. Facebook ads were targeted towards subjects >45 years old within a certain distance from a recruitment site (range 20-50 miles). Criteria were modified over time in order to increase response rates [i.e. distance was increased or decreased, age was increased to >55 year]. Facebook ads referred to a dedicated study website translated into country specific languages. If interested, subjects could complete an anonymous online screening questionnaire which provided direct automatic feedback on study eligibility. Eligible subjects were asked to provide contact details (name and telephone number) to receive additional information, a process coordinated via a secure online portal (Galen Gateway Patient Recruitment Portal, Galen Patient Recruitment, Inc., Cumberland, RI). Study site were only able to contact potential candidates within their area. The study sponsor was not able to access any personal data. Trained local site personnel or contracted secondary screeners contacted candidates by phone to verify eligibility and answer potential questions. A subsequent outpatient clinic visit was scheduled during which the study was explained in greater detail and the informed consent form could be signed. Statistical analysis Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and counts. Continuous variables were described as mean  standard deviation (SD) when normally distributed, data was compared using an Independent-Samples or Paired-Samples T test to analyze the difference between recruitment methods. In case of non-normal distribution, median data was presented with the interquartile range [IQR]. All statistical tests are 2-tailed. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical analysis (version 24.0).   RESULTS Results Facebook ads were active during a 115-day recruitment period between August and November 2017. A total of 285 potential candidates were recruited by different recruitment strategies in this specific time period, of which 184 (65%) were consented through Facebook (Table 1). The average age of the subjects consented through Facebook was 59 ± 8 years and 51% were male (Table 2). Facebook reached 5.3 million people in 168 separate campaigns run in proximity to 19 sites in the US and 14 sites in Europe. The number of candidates per site was variable with a median of 23 [17 – 26] candidates per site that passed the questionnaire (Figure 1). A total of 27/184 subjects were eventually randomised. Total cost for the Facebook ads was $152,412; costing $907/campaign and $0.83/click. This resulted in a total cost of $828/consent. During the same recruitment period, 7-day radio spots were launched with a total cost of $2,870; resulting in 9 inquiries with eventually 5 potential candidates and 2 consents ($1,435/consent).   CONCLUSIONS Conclusion Targeted social media was a successful and efficient strategy to find potential candidates for a multicenter blood pressure clinical trial. Whether this approach can be replicated across other disease states or demographics remains to be studied.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daria Kim ◽  
Joerg Hasford

Abstract The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials – studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éloïse Gennet ◽  
Annagrazia Altavilla

Regulating paediatric research means searching for the balance between two valuable goals: protecting children while ensuring they benefit from safe and efficient medicines. Different legal instruments were adopted in the eu in order to regulate clinical trials, foster paediatric research and promote European and international ethical guidelines. However a new Regulation on clinical trials was adopted in 2014, and might change the current framework of paediatric research. How does the new Regulation 536/2014 foster research on children taking into account both the eu Paediatric Regulation and the eu Ethical Recommendations? Does it live up to the standards of the Directive 2001/20/ec and does it represent a step forward in accordance with international ethical guidelines? This article shows that, despite the adoption of new rules, many clarifications are still needed. Stakeholders involved in paediatric research have to play a driving role in the implementation process of the new Regulation.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Nicole Fusco ◽  
Hwanhee Hong ◽  
Tianjing Li ◽  
Joseph K. Canner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Adverse events (AEs) in randomized clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials, or across sources for a single trial, may produce inconsistent and confusing information about the adverse events associated with interventions Methods: We sought to compare the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., “selection criteria”) and to determine how selection criteria could impact the AEs reported. We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports [CSRs]) of trials for two drug-indications: gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting. Results: We identified 21 gabapentin trials and 7 quetiapine trials. All CSRs (6 gabapentin, 2 quetiapine) reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs that would be reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion “occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group,” while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion, “occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group.” Conclusions: Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might “cherry-pick” AEs based on study results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting of AEs will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems we identified in this study. Keywords: Harms, adverse events, clinical trials, reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, data sharing, trial registration


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Von Haehling ◽  
Nicole Ebner ◽  
John E Morley ◽  
Andrew JS Coats ◽  
Stefan D Anker

AbstractThis article details the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle Clinical Reports (JCSM Clinical Reports). At the time of submission to JCSM Clinical Reports, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are obtained below: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM Clinical Reports;No person having a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript;The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has it been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced;All original research work are approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees;All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript;The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM Clinical Reports as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true; andIf any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM Clinical Reports as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document