scholarly journals Obstacles in conducting clinical trials in the Saudi Arabia

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Salem D. Al Suwaidan ◽  
Aseel S. Alsuwaidan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Regulatory Authorities ◽  
Research Institution

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Conducting clinical research in accordance with the standards of regulatory authorities and within the guidelines of the good clinical practice (GCP) is a matter of concern.  It has been noticed that some increment in the conduction of clinical trials outside USA and European countries in the last two decades. The main objective of this study is to identify the magnitude of some obstacles that affect the conduction of clinical trials in accordance with the GCP.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Developing questionnaire in accordance with the criteria of the GCP would make assessment on how to buildup infrastructure including policy and procedures of the research institution. Recommendation of the study is to perform this questionnaire every other year to assess the progress and development of the research institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> To identify good clinical researchers, what sort of obstacle(s) regarding conducting clinical trials, and from these obstacles how to resolve it and build up infrastructure for the research institution and also to establish the strategic plan for the research institution.</p>

scholarly journals Good Clinical Practice (GCP) – an alternative, unarticulated narrative

2021 ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
Samir Malhotra
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Official Document ◽  
Market Expansion ◽  
New Drug Development

GCP has become the gold-standard for clinical research; initiated as a guideline pertaining to new drug development, it became a law in many countries, extending its scope to include all research. GCP is an excellent document that outlines the responsibilities of stakeholders involved in clinical research. Widely acclaimed, and deservedly so, it is considered as the “go-to” document whenever questions arise during the conduct of a clinical trial. This article presents another narrative, one that has not been articulated so far. Irrespective of whether we consider GCP as a law or a guideline, it is viewed as an “official” document, without the overt realisation that this was actually an initiative of the pharmaceutical industry, the “masters of mankind”. While the stress on documentation and monitoring in GCP was justified, its over-interpretation led to increased costs of clinical trials, with the result that smaller companies find it difficult to conduct the already expensive trials. GCP as an idea is now so entrenched within the scientific community that the real aims which led to its birth and that can be mined from the ICH website, like the need for market expansion, have remained largely unnoticed and undocumented, and are being expressed here.

scholarly journals Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals’ Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ): Recommendations for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training for investigators and study coordinators

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Shanley ◽  
Nancy A. Calvin-Naylor ◽  
Ruthvick Divecha ◽  
Michelle M. Wartak ◽  
Karen Blackwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Minimum Criteria ◽  
Research Professionals

IntroductionThe translation of discoveries to drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions requires well-prepared study teams. Execution of clinical trials remains suboptimal due to varied quality in design, execution, analysis, and reporting. A critical impediment is inconsistent, or even absent, competency-based training for clinical trial personnel.MethodsIn 2014, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) funded the project, Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals’ Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ), aimed at addressing this deficit. The goal was to ensure all personnel are competent to execute clinical trials. A phased structure was utilized.ResultsThis paper focuses on training recommendations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Leveraging input from all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, the following was recommended to NCATS: all investigators and study coordinators executing a clinical trial should understand GCP principles and undergo training every 3 years, with the training method meeting the minimum criteria identified by the International Conference on Harmonisation GCP.ConclusionsWe anticipate that industry sponsors will acknowledge such training, eliminating redundant training requests. We proposed metrics to be tracked that required further study. A separate task force was composed to define recommendations for metrics to be reported to NCATS.

The Use of Digital Clinical Trial Methods in the Evaluation of Digital Therapeutics: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Hirsch ◽  
Mahip Grewal ◽  
Anthony James Martorell ◽  
Brian Michael Iacoviello
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Trial Research ◽  
Digital Methods ◽  
Clinical Trial Methods

BACKGROUND Digital Therapeutics (DTx) provide evidence based therapeutic health interventions that have been clinically validated to deliver therapeutic outcomes, such that the software is the treatment. Digital methodologies are increasingly adopted to conduct clinical trials due to advantages they provide including increases in efficiency and decreases in trial costs. Digital therapeutics are digital by design and can leverage the potential of digital and remote clinical trial methods. OBJECTIVE The principal purpose of this scoping review is to review the literature to determine whether digital technologies are being used in DTx clinical research, which type are being used and whether publications are noting any advantages to their use. As DTx development is an emerging field there are likely gaps in the knowledge base regarding DTx and clinical trials, and the purpose of this review is to illuminate those gaps. A secondary purpose is to consider questions which emerged during the review process including whether fully remote digital clinical research is appropriate for all health conditions and whether digital clinical trial methods are inline with the principles of Good Clinical Practice. METHODS 1,326 records were identified by searching research databases and 1,227 reviewed at the full-article level in order to determine if they were appropriate for inclusion. Confirmation of clinical trial status, use of digital clinical research methods and digital therapeutic status as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in order to determine relevant articles. Digital methods employed in DTx research were extracted from each article and these data were synthesized in order to determine which digital methods are currently used in clinical trial research. RESULTS After applying our criteria for scoping review inclusion, 11 articles were identified. All articles used at least one form of digital clinical research methodology enabling an element of remote research. The most commonly used digital methods are those related to recruitment, enrollment and the assessment of outcomes. A small number of articles reported using other methods such as online compensation (n = 3), or digital reminders for participants (n = 5). The majority of digital therapeutics clinical research using digital methods is conducted in the United States and increasing number of articles using digital methods are published each year. CONCLUSIONS Digital methods are used in clinical trial research evaluating DTx, though not frequently as evidenced by the low proportion of articles included in this review. Fully remote clinical trial research is not yet the standard, more frequently authors are using partially remote methods. Additionally, there is tremendous variability in the level of detail describing digital methods within the literature. As digital technologies continue to advance and the clinical research DTx literature matures, digital methods which facilitate remote research may be used more frequently.

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Madeira ◽  
L. Hořavová ◽  
F. dos Santos ◽  
J. R. Batuca ◽  
K. Nebeska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
European Countries ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Funding Policies ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
First Time

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.

scholarly journals Oc021—Clinical Trials Registry And Good Clinical Practice: In Indian Scenario

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. e9
Author(s):  
A. Prakash ◽  
B. Medhi ◽  
S. Kaur ◽  
S. Kumari ◽  
P. Sarotra
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry ◽  
Indian Scenario

scholarly journals European survey on national training activities in clinical research

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Magnin ◽  
V. Cabral Iversen ◽  
G. Calvo ◽  
B. Čečetková ◽  
O. Dale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Specific Training ◽  
Continuous Training ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Training Activities ◽  
Career Options

Abstract Background Investigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists. Methods To fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action. Results The survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries. Conclusions There is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.

New requirements for phase I trials: a challenge for Italian clinical research

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Marchesi ◽  
Manuela Monti ◽  
Oriana Nanni ◽  
Lisette Bassi ◽  
Martina Piccinni-Leopardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
Near Future

Background: In 2015, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; AIFA) issued the Determination 809/2015 with new requirements for phase I clinical trials. Before it came into force, we explored the extent to which several Italian oncology centers were working to implement it. Methods: A survey was conducted among 80 Italian centers involved in clinical trials. Investigators and research coordinators were surveyed. Results: Answers from 42 institutions were collected: among them 88.1% were involved in oncology research. In the last 5 years, 55% had conducted from 1 to 5 phase I trials, and only 16.7% more than 5. A third were involved in not-first-in-human research and none with healthy volunteers. The majority (57.1%) of the centers did not run any projects and trials are non-commercial, and about 35%, no more than 2. While 9.5% already met the standards for self-certification, 71.4% were working to achieve them. Standard operating procedures dedicated to research and the required good clinical practice training had been established by 57.1% and 76.2%, respectively. Fifty percent of laboratories were almost compliant with the Determination. After 10 months from its coming into force, 98 sites had applied for certification, of which 34 were oncology units. Conclusions: The new AIFA Determination imposes a certified organizational model on units and laboratories involved in phase I trials. Our results showed that great efforts were made to qualify for phase I research suggesting that other oncology units will apply for certification in the near future. Predictably, Italy will set the pace as a highly qualified country in which to conduct early-phase research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document