FDA analysis of patient enrollment by region in clinical trials for approved oncological indications.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2539-2539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bindu Kanapuru ◽  
Harpreet Singh ◽  
Lola A. Fashoyin-Aje ◽  
Adrian Myers ◽  
Geoffrey Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
North America ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Malignant Solid Tumor ◽  
Trends Over Time ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Patient Enrollment

2539 Background: Clinical trials are increasingly conducted on a global scale in an effort to accelerate accrual. This analysis attempts to quantify and characterize participants in trials submitted to support approval of drugs for oncology indications by the region of enrollment. Methods: Demographic information was extracted for patients enrolled in clinical trials submitted to the FDA from 2005-2015. Only trials submitted to support approval for malignant solid tumor or hematology indications were included. Countries were grouped into regions for further analysis. A total of 178,024 patients with information regarding age and country were included in this analysis. Results: Forty five percent (80,460) of clinical trial participants were enrolled from Europe, 36% (63,958) from North America (includes U.S.A and Canada) and 8.4% (14,975) from Asia. Countries in Latin America, Middle East/Africa and the Baltic States/Russia enrolled the remainder 10.5% of the patients. Among 99,556 participants < 65 years of age; 38.7% (38,538) were enrolled from North America, 40.5% (40,362) from Europe, 9.7 % (9674) from Asia and 11% from the rest of the regions. Europe enrolled the highest number of cancer patients aged 65 years or older; 51.1% (40,098) compared to 32.4% (25,420) from North America and 6.8 % (5301) from Asia. Conclusions: Majority of patients enrolled into clinical trials submitted for oncology drug approvals were from regions other than North America, with highest number enrolled from Europe particularly in the older age group. While it is interesting to speculate, the reasons for differential enrollment of patients between Europe and North America and the impact of these findings on interpretation of clinical trial results need additional exploration. Analysis of trends over time may be useful to address this issue. [Table: see text]

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.

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 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.

Adaptive Learning of Drug Quality and Optimization of Patient Recruitment for Clinical Trials with Dropouts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhili Tian ◽  
Weidong Han ◽  
Warren B. Powell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Dynamic Programming ◽  
Value Function ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Interim Analyses ◽  
Clinical Trial Program ◽  
Patient Enrollment ◽  
The Value Function

Problem definition: Clinical trials are crucial to new drug development. This study investigates optimal patient enrollment in clinical trials with interim analyses, which are analyses of treatment responses from patients at intermediate points. Our model considers uncertainties in patient enrollment and drug treatment effectiveness. We consider the benefits of completing a trial early and the cost of accelerating a trial by maximizing the net present value of drug cumulative profit. Academic/practical relevance: Clinical trials frequently account for the largest cost in drug development, and patient enrollment is an important problem in trial management. Our study develops a dynamic program, accurately capturing the dynamics of the problem, to optimize patient enrollment while learning the treatment effectiveness of an investigated drug. Methodology: The model explicitly captures both the physical state (enrolled patients) and belief states about the effectiveness of the investigated drug and a standard treatment drug. Using Bayesian updates and dynamic programming, we establish monotonicity of the value function in state variables and characterize an optimal enrollment policy. We also introduce, for the first time, the use of backward approximate dynamic programming (ADP) for this problem class. We illustrate the findings using a clinical trial program from a leading firm. Our study performs sensitivity analyses of the input parameters on the optimal enrollment policy. Results: The value function is monotonic in cumulative patient enrollment and the average responses of treatment for the investigated drug and standard treatment drug. The optimal enrollment policy is nondecreasing in the average response from patients using the investigated drug and is nonincreasing in cumulative patient enrollment in periods between two successive interim analyses. The forward ADP algorithm (or backward ADP algorithm) exploiting the monotonicity of the value function reduced the run time from 1.5 months using the exact method to a day (or 20 minutes) within 4% of the exact method. Through an application to a leading firm’s clinical trial program, the study demonstrates that the firm can have a sizable gain of drug profit following the optimal policy that our model provides. Managerial implications: We developed a new model for improving the management of clinical trials. Our study provides insights of an optimal policy and insights into the sensitivity of value function to the dropout rate and prior probability distribution. A firm can have a sizable gain in the drug’s profit by managing its trials using the optimal policies and the properties of value function. We illustrated that firms can use the ADP algorithms to develop their patient enrollment strategies.

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

scholarly journals PO 8300 REGIONAL CENTER FOR REGULATORY EXCELLENCE IN CLINICAL TRIAL OVERSIGHT – TRAINING 2017

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A28.1-A28
Author(s):  
Delese Darko ◽  
Yvonne Adu-Boahen
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Fellowship Training ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Trial Oversight ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe competencies of the various national medicines regulatory agencies (NMRAs) in Africa vary which leads to generally porous regulatory systems for clinical trial oversight. Consequently, many trials have been conducted under unacceptable conditions compromising participants’ safety and data credibility and resulted in questionable outcomes that are used for making scientific judgement in addressing issues of public health in Africa.To improve the safety and quality of health technologies in Africa, the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) agency launched a programme to designate Regional Centres of Regulatory Excellence (RCOREs) with the specific objective of bridging existing gaps between African NMRAs through strengthening regulatory capacity of African Union member states. The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), Ghana, was designated as RCORE for Clinical Trials oversight in May 2014.MethodsTo achieve the RCORE objectives, the FDA collaborated with the School of Public Health (SPH), University of Ghana to develop a training manual and piloted a training programme with funds from the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) through NEPAD.The programme, consisting of 4 compulsory modules, was organised from 6–30 November 2017 for 10 participants from Zambia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda and Ghana. Interactive training methods in the form of theoretical and practical sessions were employed.ResultsThe pilot RCORE training was successful with expected training objectives achieved. Participants gained hands-on experience through activities like observing Good Clinical Practice inspection and a Technical Advisory Committee Meeting. Participants were given template tools to assist in developing regulatory guidelines and forms in their respective countries.A follow-up questionnaire was circulated to participants to assess the impact of the training on their work. Feedback „indicates that regulation of clinical trials has improved in their respective institutions.ConclusionThis pilot fellowship training was successful, „leading to the improvement of clinical trial regulation in the participating countries.

scholarly journals Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials: Impact of Mandatory Trial Registration

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 131-141
Author(s):  
Ashish Kumar Kakkar ◽  
Biswa Mohan Padhy ◽  
Sudhir Chandra Sarangi ◽  
Yogendra Kumar Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Quality Characteristics ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: Numerous studies across multiple specialties have evaluated the impact of trial registration on quality of study reports and found significant improvements over several domains. However, the impact of mandatory trial registration on the quality of clinical trial protocols remains hitherto unexplored. Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of clinical trial applications submitted to drug regulatory authority of India for initial review with the objective of comparing methodological characteristics of their protocols. Since trial registration was made mandatory in the country in June 2009, we selected two study periods as between January 2007 to May 2009 (Period I) and July 2009 to December 2011 (Period II). Seventy-five protocols were randomly selected using a computer-generated list for each study period, making a total of 150 protocols. Data on twelve key methodological characteristics were collected including clearly defined primary outcomes, randomization, blinding, use of control group, statistical methods, handling of withdrawals amongst others. Results: More than 3/4th of the trial applications in the two study periods were for new chemical entities and nearly 90% were pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies. Comparing the period before and after implementation of mandatory trial registration, description of clearly defined trial outcomes improved from nearly 42% to 80% (p<0.001), sample size justifications increased from 38% to 70% (p<0.001) and use of allocation concealment improved from 24% to 49% (p=0.001). Marked improvement was also noted for blinding, description of statistical methods and handling of withdrawals and dropouts. Remaining characteristics did not change significantly between the two study periods. The mean cumulative scores for the study protocols improved significantly from 7± 0.296 in the first period to 8.93± 0.346 (p<0.001) in the second period. Conclusions: Our study found a significant improvement in the methodological quality characteristics of the protocols particularly in elements related to minimization of bias and statistical methods, which could be attributed to mandatory trial registration. Overall, the significant improvement was limited to global clinical trials, and room for improvement was noted for two quality characteristics – proportion of randomized studies and trials adequately describing the generation of allocation sequence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document