Publications
The nature and the purpose of the ECRIN Data Centre Certification Programme are summarised, and a very brief description is given of the underlying standards (129 in total, divided into 19 separate lists). The certification activity performed so far is described. In a pilot phase 2 centres were certified in 2012. Calls in 2014 and 2015 resulted in a further 8 certified centres, with 2 certifications still in progress, and the 2016 call has generated several additional applications. The impact and benefits of the programme are listed, divided into a) the effects of the introduction of the standards, b) the effects of the certification programme in general, and c) the effects of the certification programme on individual units. The discussion emphasises the generally positive impact of the programme so far but stresses the need to better clarify the perspective and role of the programme.
Background:
In spite of efforts to employ risk-based strategies to increase monitoring efficiency in the academic setting, empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains sparse. This mixed-methods study aimed to evaluate the risk-based on-site monitoring approach currently followed at our academic institution.
Methods: We selected all studies monitored by the Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) according to Risk ADApted MONitoring (ADAMON) at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 01.01.2012 and 31.12.2014. We extracted study characteristics and monitoring information from the CTU Enterprise Resource Management system and from monitoring reports of all selected studies. We summarized the data descriptively. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the three current CTU monitors.
Results: During the observation period, a total of 214 monitoring visits were conducted in 43 studies resulting in 2961 documented monitoring findings. Our risk-based approach predominantly identified administrative (46.2%) and patient right findings (49.1%). We identified observational study design, high ADAMON risk category, industry sponsorship, the presence of an electronic database, experienced site staff, and inclusion of vulnerable study population to be factors associated with lower numbers of findings. The monitors understand the positive aspects of a risk-based approach but fear missing systematic errors due to the low frequency of visits.
Conclusions: We show that the factors mostly increasing the risk for on-site monitoring findings are underrepresented in the current risk analysis scheme. Our risk-based on-site approach should further be complemented by centralized data checks, allowing monitors to transform their role towards partners for overall trial quality, and success.
Herein, we provide for the first time an overview of the facts and figures concerning IICTs, existing infrastructures' capacity for interventional clinical research, and scientific performance of investigators in a European country, Portugal. We aim to highlight the relevance and need for investing in European infrastructures such as the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) for multinational IICTs. A public, non-profit organisation, ECRIN facilitates the conduct of multinational clinical trials in Europe by coordinating scientific partners and their networks, and providing advice, management services and tools to enhance collaboration. Currently in Portugal, few multinational randomised IICTs are coordinated by national investigators. This is most likely due to the lack of human resources dedicated to clinical trials in clinical research centres (CRCs) as well as the scarcity of professional academic clinical trial units (CTUs) providing logistics and management services at non-profit rates.
With the data shown, we expect to trigger the development of similar studies in other European countries and stress the impact of government support for IICTs.
Aim: Many questions of relevance to patients/society are not answered by industry-sponsored clinical trials. We consider whether there are benefits to governments in funding practice-oriented clinical trials.
Methodology: A literature search including publications on institutions’ websites was performed and supplemented with information gathered from (inter)national stakeholders. Results: Areas were identified where public funding of clinical trials is of importance for society, such as head-to-head comparisons or medical areas where companies have no motivation to invest. The available literature suggests publicly funded research programs could provide a positive return on investment. The main hurdles (e.g., sufficient funding and absence of equipoise) and success factors (e.g., selection of research questions and research infrastructure) for the successful conduct of publicly funded trials were identified.
Conclusion: Governments should see public funding of pragmatic practice-oriented clinical trials as a good opportunity to improve the selection and quality of treatments and stimulate efficient use of limited resources.
Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems.
Full article:http://ecrin.org/node/588
Methods: Participants in the ECRAN consortium included clinicians and methodologists directly involved in clinical trials; researchers working in partnership with the public and patients; representatives of patients; and experts in science communication. We searched for, and evaluated, relevant existing materials and developed additional materials and tools, making them freely available under a Creative Commons licence.
Results: The principal communication materials developed were:
1. A website (http://ecranproject.eu) in six languages, including a Media centre section to help journalists to disseminate information about the ECRAN project
2. An animated film about clinical trials, dubbed in the 23 official languages of the European Community, and an interactive tutorial
3. An inventory of resources, available in 23 languages, searchable by topic, author, and media type
4. Two educational games for young people, developed in six languages
5. Testing Treatments interactive in a dozen languages, including five official European Community languages
6. An interactive tutorial slide presentation testing viewers’ knowledge about clinical trials
Conclusions:
Over a 2-year project, our multidisciplinary and multinational consortium was able to produce, and make freely available in many languages, new materials to promote public knowledge about the importance of independent and international clinical trials. Sustained funding for the ECRAN information platform could help to promote successful recruitment to independent clinical trials supported through the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network.
Growing use of cloud computing in clinical trials prompted the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network, a European non-profit organisation established to support multinational clinical research, to organise a one-day workshop on the topic to clarify potential benefits and risks. The issues that arose in that workshop are summarised and include the following: the nature of cloud computing and the cloud computing industry; the risks in using cloud computing services now; the lack of explicit guidance on this subject, both generally and with reference to clinical trials; and some possible ways of reducing risks. There was particular interest in developing and using a European 'community cloud' specifically for academic clinical trial data. It was recognised that the day-long workshop was only the start of an ongoing process. Future discussion needs to include clarification of trial-specific regulatory requirements for cloud computing and involve representatives from the relevant regulatory bodies.
The European Medicines Agency has opened a window to access clinical trial data. This is an important step forward which deserves attention, support, and advice from all the stakeholders. Regulatory agencies are the most comprehensive repositories of clinical trial data on drugs and can also promote and develop standard practices for data sharing. The release of the EMA draft policy on publication and access to clinical trial data in 2013 has fueled a lively debate among academia, industry, and the public in general that is still ongoing. As clinical researchers and producers and users of clinical trial data, we endorse the European Medicines Agency's opening and offer a few suggestions for complete, safe, and effective data sharing.
Global educational efforts appropriately focused according to local needs are required for supporting science-based rational therapy with conventional and biological agents, vaccines, and drug-medical device combinations worldwide. The 17th World Congress of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology in Cape Town, South Africa offered a unique opportunity to discuss with experts working in differently developed environments the current state and challenges of education and training for medicine development, regulation, and clinical research in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs). The goals were to understand and appraise the magnitude of the educational needs of lesser developed countries and to formulate teaching concepts for covering the identified topics in the respective scientific fields. Finally, the practical approach and financial backing needed to realize such programs were discussed to appraise possible risks involved. The satellite workshop was organized in cooperation with the Fundisa African Academy of Medicines Development and the Hungarian Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, under the joint scientific auspices of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-PharmaTrain project [IMI-PhT] (2015) and the International Federation of Associations of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Pharmaceutical Medicine [IFAPP] (2015). The lecturers were selected to represent regional experts working at local universities, regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Other speakers were recruited from PhT course providers and IFAPP member organizations engaged in educational activities in various regions of the world. The topics of the workshop were divided into five subject areas which will be discussed separately below.
Since 2002, the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures identified the needs for Research Infrastructures (RIs) in Europe in priority fields of scientific research and drafted a strategic document, the ESFRI Roadmap, defining the specific RIs essential to foster European research and economy. The Biological and Medical Sciences RIs (BMS RIs) were developed thanks to the active participation of many institutions in different European member states associated to address the emerging needs in biomedicine and, among these, the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), in virtue of its role in public health and research, has been specifically involved in the national development and implementation of three RIs: the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI), the European Advanced Translational Research Infrastructure in Medicine (EATRIS) and the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN).
AIM:
This article outlines the design and development of these RIs up to the recent achievement of the ERIC status, their importance in the Horizon 2020 programme and their societal and economic potential impact, with special attention to their development and significance in Italy.
CONCLUSIONS:
The ISS plays a unique role in fostering a coordinated participation of excellence Italian institutes/facilities to different European biomedical RIs, thus contributing to health innovation, healthcare optimization, and healthcare cost containment.
A better education and training of clinical investigators and their teams is one of the factors that could foster the development of clinical research in Europe, a key objective of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). PharmaTrain (an IMI programme on training in medicines development), and European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) have joined forces to address this issue. An advisory group composed of representatives of universities, pharmaceutical companies and other organisations met four times between June 2011 and July 2012. This resulted in a position paper proposing a strategy to improve and harmonize clinical investigator training in Europe, and including a detailed syllabus and list of learning outcomes. Major recommendations are the establishment of minimal and mutually recognized certification requirement for investigators throughout the EU and the creation of a European platform to provide a suitable course and examination infrastructure.
The pilot phase of the ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) certification programme for European data centres, in late 2011, led to a substantial revision of the original ECRIN standards, completed by June 2012. The pilot phase, the conclusions drawn from it and the revised set of standards are described. Issues concerning the further development of standards and related material are discussed, as are the methods available to best support that development. A strategy is outlined based on short-lived specific task groups, established as necessary by a steering group drawn from ECRIN-ERIC. A final section discusses possible future developments.
The pilot phase of the ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) certification programme for European data centres, in late 2011, led to a substantial revision of the original ECRIN standards, completed by June 2012. The pilot phase, the conclusions drawn from it and the revised set of standards are described. Issues concerning the further development of standards and related material are discussed, as are the methods available to best support that development. A strategy is outlined based on short-lived specific task groups, established as necessary by a steering group drawn from ECRIN-ERIC. A final section discusses possible future developments.
BACKGROUND:
In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe.
METHODS:
We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries.
RESULTS:
Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised.
CONCLUSION:
The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.
Evaluating research outcomes requires multinational cooperation in clinical research for optimization of treatment strategies and comparative effectiveness research, leading to evidence-based practice and healthcare cost containment. The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) is a distributed ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures) roadmap pan-European infrastructure designed to support multinational clinical research, making Europe a single area for clinical studies, taking advantage of its population size to access patients, and unlocking latent scientific potential. Servicing multinational trials started during its preparatory phase, and ECRIN will now apply for an ERIC (European Research Infrastructures Consortium) status by 2011. By creating a single area for clinical research in Europe, this achievement will contribute to the implementation of the Europe flagship initiative 2020 'Innovation Union', whose objectives include defragmentation of the research and education capacity, tackling the major societal challenges starting with the area of healthy ageing, and removing barriers to bring ideas to the market.
BACKGROUND:
A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials.
METHODS:
International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials.
RESULTS:
The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff.
CONCLUSIONS:
The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres
BACKGROUND:
'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries.
METHODS:
The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK).
RESULTS:
European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount.
CONCLUSIONS:
'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.
BACKGROUND:
The use of Clinical Data Management Systems (CDMS) has become essential in clinical trials to handle the increasing amount of data that must be collected and analyzed. With a CDMS trial data are captured at investigator sites with "electronic Case Report Forms". Although more and more of these electronic data management systems are used in academic research centres an overview of CDMS products and of available data management and quality management resources for academic clinical trials in Europe is missing.
METHODS:
The ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) data management working group conducted a two-part standardized survey on data management, software tools, and quality management for clinical trials. The questionnaires were answered by nearly 80 centres/units (with an overall response rate of 47% and 43%) from 12 European countries and EORTC.
RESULTS:
Our survey shows that about 90% of centres have a CDMS in routine use. Of these CDMS nearly 50% are commercial systems; Open Source solutions don't play a major role. In general, solutions used for clinical data management are very heterogeneous: 20 different commercial CDMS products (7 Open Source solutions) in addition to 17/18 proprietary systems are in use. The most widely employed CDMS products are MACRO and Capture System, followed by solutions that are used in at least 3 centres: eResearch Network, CleanWeb, GCP Base and SAS. Although quality management systems for data management are in place in most centres/units, there exist some deficits in the area of system validation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Because the considerable heterogeneity of data management software solutions may be a hindrance to cooperation based on trial data exchange, standards like CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standard Consortium) should be implemented more widely. In a heterogeneous environment the use of data standards can simplify data exchange, increase the quality of data and prepare centres for new developments (e.g. the use of EHR for clinical research). Because data management and the use of electronic data capture systems in clinical trials are characterized by the impact of regulations and guidelines, ethical concerns are discussed. In this context quality management becomes an important part of compliant data management. To address these issues ECRIN will establish certified data centres to support electronic data management and associated compliance needs of clinical trial centres in Europe.
BACKGROUND:
Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states.
METHODS:
In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey.
RESULTS:
The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising.
CONCLUSION:
The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.
Health and legislative systems in Europe fragment clinical research and dampen its competitiveness, reducing the capacity to enrol patients in clinical studies, increasing the costs of clinical research, and hampering scientific productivity. For academic infrastructures of clinical research and investigators doing multinational studies in Europe, fragmentation raises obstacles: national regulation, informed consent, ethical review, data monitoring, adverse events, insurance, costs, funding, training, and language are bottlenecks in the conduct of multinational studies.