scholarly journals Motivation for and Barriers to Participation in Clinical Trials From the Perspective of Patients With Rheumatic Diseases and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 332-345
Author(s):  
Susann Vogt ◽  
Ingo H. Tarner ◽  
Ulf Müller-Ladner ◽  
Ramona König

Background: Clinical studies are indispensable for the development and clinical introduction of new therapies. Particularly in the field of rheumatology, there is a high need for the development of new drugs because for most rheumatic diseases a curative treatment is not yet available. Furthermore, a large percentage of patients are not even treated adequately with approved treatment options. Treatment is particularly challenging for those entities that belong to the so-called orphan diseases because effective drugs have yet to be developed and approval of new drugs is difficult due to the fact that only small numbers of affected patients can be recruited for clinical trials. Despite the need for new developments and thus clinical studies, patient recruitment for clinical trials in Germany is generally difficult. Therefore, sponsors frequently use non-European study centers to enroll the necessary numbers of patients as inadequate patient recruitment leads to increased costs and delayed implementation of new medical knowledge. Objective: Given the overall limited recruitment rates for clinical studies in Germany, it was the aim of this work to gain insights into motivations for and barriers to participating in clinical trials in Germany from the patients’ point of view. Methods: Data was collected using a structured questionnaire in three groups of patients who are suffering from a rheumatic disease and are receiving specialist care. The completely anonymous questionnaire included a total of 32 questions, divided into four main topics. All questions could only be answered by yes or no or by selecting or not selecting a choice of the answer provided. Per question, proportions of patients selecting yes or no or any of the choices were compared between groups and between males and females. Results: It was found that there is a lack of education and knowledge about the nature and offer of clinical trials among patients with rheumatic diseases. This issue represents one of the main barriers to patient recruitment for clinical trials. In addition, a large proportion of patients are concerned about the possible adverse effects of study drugs and about being used as “guinea pigs”. While the internet and daily newspapers are rarely used for education regarding study participation, it became clear that the family doctor as a trusted person and possible network partner has a special role in improving patient willingness to participate in trials. Furthermore, interviewees hope for shorter waiting times at the doctor's office and a better, regular, more intensive medical care when participating in a clinical trial. Conclusion: Better and broader information of patients can be regarded as a key to better recruitment for clinical trials since many patients, on the one hand, have certain concerns about clinical trials but at the same time do see the potential for personal advantages when participating in a trial. Information events by patient organizations and specialist centers could be a way to reach out to patients and to break down barriers with regard to participation in clinical trials. Presentations by sponsors and established clinical trial centers and intensified networking with general practitioners and specialists could probably also enhance patient recruitment.

2015 ◽  
Vol 134 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Gomes Freitas ◽  
Thomas Fernando Coelho Pesavento ◽  
Maurício Reis Pedrosa ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Maria Regina Torloni

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial registration is a prerequisite for publication in respected scientific journals. Recent Brazilian regulations also require registration of some clinical trials in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) but there is little information available about practical issues involved in the registration process. This article discusses the importance of clinical trial registration and the practical issues involved in this process. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted by researchers within a postgraduate program at a public university in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Information was obtained from clinical trial registry platforms, article reference lists and websites (last search: September 2014) on the following topics: definition of a clinical trial, history, purpose and importance of registry platforms, the information that should be registered and the registration process. RESULTS: Clinical trial registration aims to avoid publication bias and is required by Brazilian journals indexed in LILACS and SciELO and by journals affiliated to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recent Brazilian regulations require that all clinical trials (phases I to IV) involving new drugs to be marketed in this country must be registered in ReBEC. The pros and cons of using different clinical trial registration platforms are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial registration is important and various mechanisms to enforce its implementation now exist. Researchers should take into account national regulations and publication requirements when choosing the platform on which they will register their trial.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Kiwanuka ◽  
Bo-Michael Bellander ◽  
Anders Hånell

When evaluating the design of pre-clinical studies in the field of traumatic brain injury, we found substantial differences compared to phase III clinical trials, which in part may explain the difficulties in translating promising experimental drugs into approved treatments. By using network analysis, we also found cases where a large proportion of the studies evaluating a pre-clinical treatment was performed by inter-related researchers, which is potentially problematic. Subjecting all pre-clinical trials to the rigor of a phase III clinical trial is, however, likely not practically achievable. Instead, we repeat the call for a distinction to be made between exploratory and confirmatory pre-clinical studies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 2095-2104 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOB KARSH ◽  
EDWARD C. KEYSTONE ◽  
BOULOS HARAOUI ◽  
J. CARTER THORNE ◽  
JANET E. POPE ◽  
...  

Objective.Current clinical trial designs for pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not reflect the innovations in RA diagnosis, treatment, and care in countries where new drugs are most often used. The objective of this project was to recommend revised entry criteria and other study design features for RA clinical trials.Methods.Recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method. Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) members were polled to rank the greatest challenges to clinical trial recruitment in their practices. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts. A scoping study methodology was then used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation. The potential influence of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials was examined. Recommendations were finalized using a consensus process.Results.Recommendations for clinical trial inclusion criteria addressed measures of disease activity [Disease Activity Score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) > 3.2 PLUS ≥ 3 tender joints using 28-joint count (TJC28) PLUS ≥ 3 swollen joint (SJC28) OR C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR > upper limit of normal PLUS ≥ 3 TJC28 PLUS ≥ 3 SJC28], functional classification, disease classification and duration, and concomitant RA treatments. Additional recommendations regarding study design addressed rescue strategies and longterm extension.Conclusion.There is an urgent need to modify clinical trial inclusion criteria and other study design features to better reflect the current characteristics of people living with RA in the countries where the new drugs will be used.


10.2196/14744 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e14744
Author(s):  
Vishal Vennu ◽  
Saurabh Dahiya

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


JMS SKIMS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-17
Author(s):  
Haroon Rashid

Clinical trials are the only way of establishing the safety and efficacy of any new drug before its introduction in the market for human use. Clinical trials (with safeguards) are necessary for introduction of new drugs for a country like India, considering its disease burden and emergence of new variants of disease.The regulatory bodies need to frame guidelines and regulatory approval processes on a par with international standards. Many of the new laws, guidance documents, notifications and initiatives for regulating pharmaceutical industry were in the charts for quite a long time. Indian regulatory authorities have started looking into speedy implementation and providing support in terms ofnecessary infrastructure and investment. JMS 2017; 20(1):5-17


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Danet ◽  
Joan Carles March Cerdá ◽  
Manuel Romero Vallecillos

Objetivo. Los ensayos clínicos con heroína (diacetilmorfina-DAM) han aportado al arsenal terapeútico disponible una alternativa en la atención a drogodependientes. El objetivo del presente artículo es conocer las experiencias y resultados clínicos de los estudios sobre el uso terapéutico de la heroina.Metodo. Revisión bibliográfica de los diferentes estudios y ensayos clínicos realizados hasta el presente a nivel mundial, sobre la intervención con pacientes dependientes de opioides. Se han consultado las bases de datos: EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Wiley-Blackwell, PubMed, Bio-Med Central, Medline, Ovid, y los descriptores «heroin», «diacetylmorphine», «clinical trial», «survey».Resultados. Se detectan 42 referencias, 16 presentan los resultados de ensayos clínicos de Suiza, Holanda, Alemania, Canadá, España y Reino Unido, comenzando con 1994. El resto de estudios se refieren a: captación y participación de los drogodependientes, mortalidad, calidad de vida, efectos secundarios y necesidad de nuevas investigaciones y ensayos clínicos.Conclusiones. Los estudios clínicos llevados a cabo hasta la actualidad muestran heterogeneidad en los métodos y variables empleadas, pero los objetivos son comunes (parten de evaluar los efectos del uso terapéutico de la heroina) y los resultados constatan la seguridad y efectividad de la prescripción médica de la diacetilmorfina. AbstractObjective. Clinical trials with heroin (diacetylmorphine) bring an alternative to the available therapeutic possibilities for addict people. The purpose of this article is to describe the experiences and results of clinical studies centered on the therapeutic use of heroin.Method. Literature review of studies and clinical trials, centered on the intervention with opiois- dependent patients. The databases consulted were : EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Wiley-Blackwell, PubMed, Bio-Med Central, Medline, Ovid. The descriptors : «heroin», «diacetylmorphine», «clinical trial», «survey».Results. The literature review revealed the existence of 42 references, of which 16 presented the results of clinical trials in Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Canada, Spain and United Kingdom, starting with 1994. Other references are centered on uptake and involvement of the drug, mortality quality of life/ side effects and need for further research and clinical trials.Conclusions. Clinical studies carried out until the present show heterogeneity in the methods and variables used, but the objectives are the same (based on assessing the effects of the therapeutic use of heroin) and the results confirm the safety and effectiveness of medical prescription of diacetylmorphine.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21520-e21520
Author(s):  
Katharina Prieske ◽  
Fabian Trillsch ◽  
Gulten Oskay-Oezcelik ◽  
Radoslav Chekerov ◽  
Eva-Maria Schoening ◽  
...  

e21520 Background: Elderly patients (pts) are underrepresented in clinical trials in gynecological cancer, even though they are disproportionally often affected. This study aimed to evaluate disposition and apprehension of elderly pts towards study participation. Methods: 112 elderly gynecological cancer pts (median age 70; range 65-92) were surveyed in a multicenter cross-sectional study. Besides fitness, state of disease, education and domestic situation, questions aimed at the general willingness to participate in a clinical trial. Personal reasons for rejection and suspected advantages/disadvantages that might evolve from participation were inquired. Results: Willingness to participate in a study was generally high (66.1%, 74/112). 42/112 (37.5%) had given their consent to participation in a study before, 12.5% (6/48) refused even though they were offered participation. Reasons for potential study participation were: ‘better monitoring of the disease’ (51/112), ‘better medical care’ (35/112), ‘to help medical research’ (31/112), ‘better medication’ (27/112) and ‘because of my doctor’s recommendation’ (17/112). Reasons for potential refusal were: ‘too time consuming’ (19/112), ‘fear of side effects’ (17/112), ‘misuse as experimental animal’ (14/112), ‘long distance to clinic’ (11/112) and ‘too little or unclear information’ (7/112). 26.1% (29/112) of pts stated, that they had ‘no objection’ against study participation. The question if pts anticipated having a longer life due to study participation was answered with ‘yes’ or ‘rather yes’ in 33.9% (38/112), 23.2% answered ‘no’ or ‘rather no’ (23.2% undecided). No relation between willingness to participate in a study and general fitness (p = 0.311), education (p = 0.631) or domestic situation (p = 0.195) could be observed. However, with increasing age, willingness decreased (p = 0.029). Conclusions: Elderly pts are generally willing to participate in clinical studies regardless of their fitness or educational background. Benefits of participation seem to be unclear among a majority of potential study participants. Therefore it might be decisive to provide more general information regarding benefits and safety for the elderly pts in a clinical trial.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishal Vennu ◽  
Saurabh Dahiya

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 PRR1-10.2196/14744


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Giacchero ◽  
Carolina Pelazza ◽  
Serena Panpa ◽  
Marinella Bertolotti ◽  
Tatiana Bolgeo ◽  
...  

Objectives: To define the Data Manager (DM) job description within the Clinical Trial Center (CTC) of the Alessandria Hospital (AO AL). To identify the number of authorized clinical studies after the implementation of three DMs in the CTC of the AO AL. Methods: The activities of the DM within the CTC of the AO AL take place in the activation, management and conclusion of clinical trials. The activities were monitored through specific indicators from June 01st, 2019 to May 31st, 2020. Results: During the reference period, an increased authorized studies were observed. Conclusion: The implementation of DMs in the CTC of AO AL has been demonstrated the importance of the figure itself, which, although it has not professionally recognized yet, is found to be fundamental in clinical research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document