A Modest Proposal for a New Way Forward for Clinical Research: Involve Insurance Companies

James H. Clark,Jayant M. Pinto,Robert M. Naclerio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22980

2022-01-01

Abstract:Is it time for medical insurance companies to organize and fund clinical research that evaluates the role of new treatments (drugs or device-based therapies) in the context of existing clinical paradigms for common diseases?

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

C Goodman

Abstract:Clinical trials are critical for developing and testing new treatments for cancer, but a panel of experts agreed that the state of clinical trials in the United States today is a "mess." How did we get into this situation in the first place, and how can we extricate ourselves? Should the federal government assume greater responsibility for funding and overseeing clinical trials and for establishing a standard health benefit package that defines the right to participate in clinical trials? The panel explored whether decisions to exclude patients are based on medical necessity and scientific merit or on the bottom line; whether insurance companies promise more than they can deliver; whether pharmaceutical companies are doing their share; and why lawyers are getting any share. In the end, the participants expressed hope that we, as a society, can get clinical trials back on track to serve their legitimate scientific and medical purposes.
FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Benjamin R Rossen

Abstract:On December 14, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed two new regulations in the Federal Register amending current regulations governing expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use and charging for investigational drugs. The proposals come at a time when FDA has found itself under new pressure to provide seriously ill patients with early access to investigational drugs outside the framework of clinical trials. In recent years, patient advocacy groups have filed citizen petitions with FDA asking the agency to provide specific criteria to patients and sponsors seeking expanded access or to create an early approval mechanism to permit easier access to investigational therapies. Further, FDA has seen proposed federal legislation intended to ensure early patient access to investigational treatments and nearly lost a lawsuit in federal court in which terminally ill patients sought a fundamental right of access to investigational therapies under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The proposed rules seek to assuage patient activists, physicians, drug sponsors and other critics who contend that FDA must strike an appropriate balance between allowing patient access to promising treatments while protecting against undue risk and safeguarding the clinical trials process. Although FDA heralded the announcement of the rules as a key step forward to improving patient access, the proposal does not expand access beyond measures currently available under longstanding agency practice and, in fact, creates new regulatory barriers and disincentives to industry participation in expanded access programs. This article examines the proposal in light of historical agency regulation and recent pressures to expand access. Section II describes the historical development of FDA's statutory authority to regulate drugs and the traditional new drug approval process. Section III describes the various methods through which FDA has allowed expanded access to investigational treatments since 1962. Section IV recounts various recent pressures on FDA to reform its expanded access procedures and describes the context in which FDA's recent proposal arises. Section V examines the changes proposed in both the proposed rules to expand access to investigational treatment and charging for investigational drugs. Section VI evaluates the rules and argues that the proposal will fail to expand access for patients because new restrictions on charging provide no incentive for industry participation and the proposed regulations create increased regulatory barriers to access inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate
Publicly Funded Clinical Trials and the Future of Cancer Care

Richard L. Schilsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0423

2013-01-30

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Publicly sponsored trials, conducted primarily by cooperative groups sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, and commercially sponsored trials are necessary to create new knowledge, improve the care of oncology patients, and develop new drugs and devices. Commercial sponsors launch clinical trials that will result in drug approval, label extension, expansion of market share, and an increase in shareholder value. Conversely, publicly sponsored trials seek to optimize therapy for a particular disease, create new knowledge, and improve public health; these trials can also result in label extension of a drug and even in initial drug approval. Publicly sponsored trials may combine and/or compare drugs developed by different commercial sponsors, develop multimodality therapies (e.g., the combination of chemotherapy and radiation), or develop novel treatment schedules or routes of drug administration (e.g., intraperitoneal chemotherapy). Publicly sponsored trials are more likely to focus on therapies for rare diseases and to study survivorship and quality of life; these areas may not be a priority for commercial entities. Screening and prevention strategies have been developed almost exclusively by the public sector given the large sample size and long follow-up period needed to complete the trial and, therefore, the lack of short-term commercial gain. Finally, given the public nature of the funding, clinical investigators are expected to publish their results even if the outcomes are unfavorable for the investigational therapy. With the ongoing reorganization of the cooperative groups to form a national clinical trials network, opportunities exist to create a robust platform for biomarker discovery and validation through the expanded collection of well-annotated biospecimens obtained from clinical trial participants. Thus, publicly funded trials are vital to developing and refining new cancer treatments and disseminating results to the medical community and the general public.
Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research

Daniel I Sessler,Benjamin A Alman,Miriam M Treggiari,Michael A Mont

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.02.018

Abstract:PRO: Nearly all new devices and drugs come from industry that provides two-thirds of the funding for medical research, and a much higher fraction of clinical research. Realistically, without corporate-funded studies, perioperative research would stagnate with little innovation and few new products. Opinions are ubiquitous and normal but do not constitute epidemiologic bias. Competent clinical research includes many protections against selection and measurement bias, and the publication process provides at least moderate protection against misinterpretation of results. Trial registries largely prevent selective data presentation. Sponsored trials are particularly protected against inappropriate corporate influence because they are usually codesigned with the US Food and Drug Administration, and analyses are based on formal predefined statistical plans, as well as being conducted with rigorous external monitoring. Novel products, which are essential for advances in clinical care, largely come from industry, and industry appropriately funds much of the required research. We should celebrate industry's contribution to improvements in clinical care. CON: While industry funding contributes to research and discovery, examples of industry-funded research demonstrate bias. In the setting of financial pressures and potential conflict of interest, bias can influence the type of study design, hypotheses being tested, rigor and transparency in data analysis, interpretation, as well as reporting of the results. Unlike public granting agencies, industry does not necessarily provide funding based on unbiased peer review following an open call for proposals. The focus on success can influence the choice of a comparator, which might not be ideal among the possible alternatives, the language used in the publication, and even the ability to publish. Unpublished negative trials can result in selected information being withheld from the scientific community and the public. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that research addresses the most important and relevant questions, that results are available even when they do not support the use of a product produced by the funding company, that populations studied reflect the relevant patients, that the most rigorous approaches are applied, that studies have the appropriate power to address the question posed, and that conclusions are presented in an unbiased manner.
Little to lose and no other options: Ethical issues in efforts to facilitate expanded access to investigational drugs

Eline M Bunnik,Nikkie Aarts,Suzanne van de Vathorst

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.005

IF: 3.255

Health Policy

Abstract:Background: Today, public and private bodies around the world are trying to facilitate and increase expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs for patients with unmet medical needs. Methods: This paper discusses three major shifts in the field of expanded access and presents an argumentative account of ethical issues connected with those shifts, based on a literature study and unstructured interviews with 35 stakeholders in the Netherlands. Results and discussion: Traditionally, expanded access has been based on three key principles: 1) it is exceptional, 2) it is done 'out of compassion', and 3) it has a therapeutic aim. Current efforts to facilitate expanded access affect these key principles, rendering expanded access a default option, allowing companies to charge for investigational drugs and gather data on its outcomes. These shifts may generate new ethical issues, including false hope, safety concerns and funding issues, which must be anticipated by physicians, pharmaceutical companies, payers and policymakers. Conclusion: Healthcare systems allow for the use of promising unapproved drugs in exceptional circumstances, but do not always assist patients with unmet medical needs in getting access. It is time to replace the current patchwork of practices with systems for expanded access in which criteria are clearly described, responsibilities are assigned and arrangements are made, so that patients will know what (not) to expect from expanded access.
Making the Ethical Oversight of All Clinical Trials Fit for Purpose

Nancy E Kass,Ruth R Faden,Derek C Angus,Stephanie R Morain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.0269

IF: 11.816

2024-10-19

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: With the increase in trials assessing comparative effectiveness of approved products and alternative care strategies, guidance is needed to ensure ethical oversight is fit for purpose for the risks, burdens, and constraints on choice this research presents. Observations: US regulations governing human research emerged in response to horrific research abuses, reinforcing the view that research holds greater risks, uncertainties, and potential for abuse than clinical care, and thus protections and oversight are required for research, but not for care. The research oversight system established by these regulations has been effective, with most clinical research reviewed in advance for possible risk and burdens and for threats to autonomy and justice. For clinical research, however, it has become too much of a one-size-fits-all mechanism. As more comparative effectiveness and other research on widely used clinical interventions are conducted, research oversight should be fit for purpose for these kinds of trials, with the degree of oversight based on 2 morally relevant features of a trial. The first of these features is the degree to which risks and burdens increase or change when research is integrated into clinical care compared with what patient-participants would have experienced in care absent the research. The second is whether the activity restricts meaningful patient decision-making about care in morally important ways: (1) does the research restrict a choice or decision that patients ordinarily are or should be involved in and (2) does research participation remove from patients the ability to make a decision that may be meaningful to them, one based, at least in part, on their values, priorities, logistical or practical considerations, and the like? Whether clinical trials add risk or burden to what patients would otherwise have experienced, and whether studies restrict meaningful decisions patients would or should have had the opportunity to make, should help to determine whether clinical studies are designated as greater than vs minimal risk. Further, it is recommended that investigators and oversight bodies consider streamlined consent procedures for research presenting minimal additional risk or burden and that does not constrain meaningful patient decisions, rather than assuming that waiving all consent requirements is the only alternative. Conclusions and relevance: Ethical oversight of clinical research must be fit for purpose-with greater oversight for studies with greater risks, uncertainties, and impacts on meaningful patient decisions-and more streamlined oversight for other types of research.
The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided

Derek C Angus,Alison J Huang,Roger J Lewis,Amy P Abernethy,Robert M Califf,Martin Landray,Nancy Kass,Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo,JAMA Summit on Clinical Trials Participants,Ali B Abbasi,Kaleab Z Abebe,Stacey J Adam,Jamy Ard,Rachel A Bender Ignacio,Scott M Berry,Deepak L Bhatt,Robert O Bonow,Marc Bonten,Sharon A Brangman,John Brownstein,Melinda J B Buntin,Atul J Butte,Marion K Campbell,Anne R Cappola,Anne C Chiang,Deborah Cook,Steven R Cummings,Gregory Curfman,Laura J Esserman,Lee A Fleisher,Joseph B Franklin,Ralph Gonzalez,Cynthia I Grossman,Tufia C Haddad,Roy S Herbst,Adrian F Hernandez,Diane P Holder,Leora Horn,Grant D Huang,Alison Huang,Rohan Khera,Walter J Koroshetz,Harlan M Krumholz,Tracy A Lieu,Preeti N Malani,Christa Lese Martin,Mark McClellan,Mary M McDermott,Stephanie R Morain,Susan A Murphy,Stuart G Nicholls,Stephen J Nicholls,Peter J O'Dwyer,Bhakti K Patel,Eric Peterson,Sheila A Prindiville,Joseph S Ross,Kathryn M Rowan,Gordon Rubenfeld,Christopher W Seymour,Rod S Taylor,Joanne Waldstreicher,Tracy Y Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.4088

IF: 11.816

2024-07-09

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.
A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

R. Donald Harvey,Therica M. Miller,Patricia A. Hurley,Ramya Thota,Lora J. Black,Suanna S. Bruinooge,Leigh M. Boehmer,Mark E. Fleury,Jasmine Kamboj,Mujahid A. Rizvi,Banu E. Symington,William D. Tap,David M. Waterhouse,Laura A. Levit,Janette K. Merrill,Sheila A. Prindiville,Teri Pollastro,Jamie R. Brewer,Leslie P. Byatt,Leila Hamroun,Edward S. Kim,Nicole Holland,Grzegorz S. Nowakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35145

IF: 6.9209

2024-01-11

Cancer

Abstract:This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

oncology
Show them the money: a multi-stakeholder perspective on reforming clinical trial participant compensation

Gunnar Esiason,Angela Pontius,Luke Gelinas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-024-00107-2

IF: 112.288

2024-07-19

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Abstract:Clinical trial participant compensation is badly overdue for thoughtful reform. The first step: generating consensus across the various stakeholders, including patients, who make up the research ecosystem. Clinical trial participant compensation is badly overdue for thoughtful reform. The first step: generating consensus across the various stakeholders, including patients, who make up the research ecosystem.

pharmacology & pharmacy,biotechnology & applied microbiology
Improving Preclinical Development of Novel Interventions to Treat Pain: Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results

James C Eisenach,Andrew S C Rice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006249

2022-12-01

Abstract:Preclinical pain research has applied state-of-the-art methods over the past 40 years to describe, characterize, and image molecules, cells, and circuits in rodents to understand the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Despite generating a plethora of novel analgesic targets, pharmaceuticals for chronic pain treatment remain largely limited to the same 6 drug classes as present 40 years ago. It is possible that 40 years of effort has brought us to the verge of a paradigm shift and an explosion of novel analgesic drug classes with remarkable safety, efficacy, and tolerability. We think it more likely that advances will not occur until we follow the description of exciting discoveries with hypothesis testing using clinically relevant preclinical animal models and ethologically relevant outcome measures, which better reflect the clinical characteristics of chronic pain syndromes. Furthermore, to be valuable, experiments using such models must be conducted to the highest levels of internal validity, rigor, and reproducibility. Efforts by funders, most recently the Helping End Addiction Long-Term by the National Institutes of Health, aim to address some of these challenges and enhance communication and collaboration between preclinical and clinical investigators. However, the greater problem is a culture that emphasizes novelty and number of publications over scientific rigor and robust replication leading to a high likelihood of false-positive results. A path forward is provided by the evolution of clinical research beginning 50 years ago that resulted in methods to reduce bias and enhance transparency and ethics of reporting, moving from case reports to randomized controlled trials to innovative study designs with a focus on rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility. We argue that culture changed in clinical science in part because powerful forces outside the peer review system, especially from federal regulators that approve new drugs and human studies committees that addressed ethical failures of earlier research, mandated change in studies within their purview. Whether an external force will affect change in peclinical pain research is unclear.
Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible

Shearwood McClelland 3rd,Melissa Brately,Raed J Zuhour,Yilun Sun,Daniel E Spratt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001054

2024-02-01

Abstract:Introduction: Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible. Methods: The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer. Results: Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT. Conclusions: Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.
Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement

Michael J DiStefano,Antal Zemplenyi,R Brett McQueen,Michael J. DiStefano,R. Brett McQueen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.23255

2024-01-19

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract:In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
The Critical Role of Academic Clinical Trials in Pediatric Cancer Drug Approvals: Design, Conduct, and Fit for Purpose Data for Positive Regulatory Decisions

Bram De Wilde,Elly Barry,Elizabeth Fox,Dominik Karres,Mark Kieran,John Manlay,Donna Ludwinski,Gregory Reaman,Pamela Kearns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00033

2022-10-10

Abstract:Purpose: For decades, academic clinical trials consortia have collaborated to optimize outcomes for childhood cancers through evaluating incremental improvements in conventional mutimodality treatment regimes. There are now increasing opportunities to partner with industry to test new medicines in academic-sponsored trials, but these collaborative studies rarely contribute to marketing authorizations. We addressed why this is the case and sought solutions to enable academic-sponsored trials to directly contribute to the licensing of new medicines. Methods: Under the auspices of the multistakeholder platform ACCELERATE, we convened a working group of representatives from clinical academia, pharmaceutical industry, European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, and patient advocacy to define the challenges and propose recommendations to facilitate academic-sponsored trial design and conduct to be aligned to both the needs of the pharmaceutical company who own the asset and the expectations of the regulatory (licensing) authorities. Results: We identified that although academic consortia have long-standing expertise to conduct robust clinical trials, there were critical gaps in knowledge, standard procedures, and resources that hindered the trial data directly contributing to marketing authorization applications. We propose a suite of recommendations focused on (1) essential documents, (2) essential data, (3) data management, and (4) trial resources, specifically aimed at enabling academic-industry partnerships to deliver an academic-sponsored trial that meets the requirements for a marketing authorization submission. These recommendations pivot around transparency in academic-industry partnerships and early engagement with regulators. Conclusion: Academic sponsors and industry partners need to prospectively recognize when the planned collaborative trial could contribute to an application to marketing authorization and plan accordingly. Transparent collaboration and knowledge sharing between the partners opens an important pathway for accelerating new treatments into clinical practice for children with cancer.
Academia and society should join forces to make anti‐cancer treatments more affordable

Anton Berns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.13651

2024-04-19

Molecular Oncology

Abstract:There is an urgent need to reconsider the way we organize drug development and assess their value for cancer patients and their cost‐effectiveness. Networks of comprehensive cancer centers and society at large need to take initiatives to play a more prominent role in the development of new anti‐cancer treatments. Discovery research is the starting point for the development of more effective anti‐cancer treatments. It requires an interdisciplinary research environment with first‐class infrastructural support in which curiosity‐driven research can lead to new concepts for treating cancer. Translating such research findings to clinical practice requires complementary skills and infrastructures, including high‐quality clinical facilities, access to patient cohorts and participation of pharma. This complex ecosystem has yielded many new but also "me too" treatment regimens, especially in immuno‐oncology resulting in an extremely high pricing of anti‐cancer agents. The costs of antibodies, vaccines, and cell therapies charged by pharma stand out although the concepts and methodologies have been largely developed in academia, financed from public funds. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) covering a coherent stretch of the cancer research continuum are well‐positioned to make these personalized treatments more affordable, but this will require restructuring of the way the translational cancer research continuum is funded.

oncology
Brief of the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation to the science and technology review

Abstract:In the context of new realities, perceptions, and concerns, it is fitting that the government has undertaken this Science and Technology Review, questioning not only how much to spend but also the justification and the best ways to carry out federally-funded research. We share the government's concern about the lack of economic competitiveness of our industries and agree that government-sponsored research should make a bigger contribution to the nation's global economic position. The CSCI, which represents the clinical investigators/scientists in this country, is grateful for having been given the opportunity to make this "tour d'horizon" of Canadian clinical research. In this brief, we have attempted to articulate the needs for, and the benefits of, basic biomedical research because it is the only type of research which will provide us with final answers. However, it should be more closely articulated with applied research, as well as with epidemiological, evaluative, and operational approaches which have been neglected. This brief has emphasized that CSCI is committed to PUTTING MORE SCIENCE INTO MEDICINE by encouraging a greater flow of discoveries from the laboratory research bench to the bedside and the community. We made the point that there is a crisis in patient-oriented research and a decrease of young physicians opting for research careers. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the MRC are responsive to this situation, which may compromise our capacity to discharge our broader mission. The MRC has given itself valid instruments to foster the creation of wealth through special programs such as the NCE, the University/Industry program, and the MRC-PMAC partnership. Some refining is in order, and close scrutiny of outcome is essential. Both the academic community and industry have their share of responsibility for the less-than-optimal transfer of knowledge to the market place. Lack of venture capital is also a serious issue. A unified science-industry policy will be helpful, but the government must also act as a broker between academia and industry. There is a growing dependence on the health care industry (drugs, testing devices, equipment) for the funding of clinical research. Current legislation and incentives should be maintained but the CSCI would also like to see the funding of more phase I and phase II studies by the drug industry in Canada. We see favorably the increasing role of provincial governments in biomedical and health research and we pay tribute to disease-related foundations and to CHR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

Kevin P Weinfurt,Adrian F Hernandez,Gloria D Coronado,Lynn L DeBar,Laura M Dember,Beverly B Green,Patrick J Heagerty,Susan S Huang,Kathryn T James,Jeffrey G Jarvik,Eric B Larson,Vincent Mor,Richard Platt,Gary E Rosenthal,Edward J Septimus,Gregory E Simon,Karen L Staman,Jeremy Sugarman,Miguel Vazquez,Douglas Zatzick,Lesley H Curtis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0420-7

2017-09-18

Abstract:Background: The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. Methods: To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. Results: In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. Conclusion: A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.
Clinical Study Report and Individual Participant Data Transparency for US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Anticancer Drugs: A Call for Systematic Data Availability

Natansh D. Modi,Sandra M. Swain,Marc Buyse,Nicole M. Kuderer,Andrew Rowland,Frank W. Rockhold,Michael J. Sorich,Ashley M. Hopkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.24.00539

IF: 45.3

2024-06-27

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Unlocking the full potential of clinical trials through comprehensive CSR and IPD sharing can revolutionize cancer care, enhance safety evaluations, and reduce bias in systematic reviews. It is time for all stakeholders to embrace transparency and advance patient-centered outcomes.

oncology
WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE: New Thinking to Incentivize Drug Development

Michael S. Kinch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-024-03666-6

IF: 4.58

2024-02-02

Pharmaceutical Research

Abstract:Despite unprecedented advancements in our understanding of disease process and targeting opportunities, our continued ability to discover and develop new medicines is fundamentally in doubt. These challenges reflect a growing recognition of the escalating risks of drug development (in terms of dollars and time) by established pharmaceutical companies and investors. Such hurdles are surmountable and require new thinking. This opinion piece conveys an overview of the challenge and an example of how we might overcome these challenges with constructive and forward-looking incentives for drug discovery.

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, multidisciplinary
Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

Mark Yarborough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00170-8

Abstract:There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.
A study of implementation factors for a novel approach to clinical trials: constructs for consideration in the coordination of direct-to-patient online-based medical research

Peter F. Cronholm,Janelle Applequist,Jeffrey Krischer,Ebony Fontenot,Trocon Davis,Cristina Burroughs,Carol A. McAlear,Renée Borchin,Joyce Kullman,Simon Carette,Nader Khalidi,Curry Koening,Carol A. Langford,Paul Monach,Larry Moreland,Christian Pagnoux,Ulrich Specks,Antoine G. Sreih,Steven R. Ytterberg,Peter A. Merkel,Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium,Julie Martin,Leah Madden,Brian Rice,Jacquelyn Thomas,Julia Farquharson,Samyukta Jagadeesh,Sandra Messier,Diana Robins,Martha Finco,Jennifer Godina,Jessica Gonzalez,Julieanne Nielsen,Sonya Crook,Kathleen Gartner,Elizabeth Kisela,Lori Strozniak,Laurie Hope,Dawn McBride,Cynthia Beinhorn,Yeoniee Kim,Kathleen Mieras

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02352-w

2024-10-19

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Traditional medical research infrastructures relying on the Centers of Excellence (CoE) model (an infrastructure or shared facility providing high standards of research excellence and resources to advance scientific knowledge) are often limited by geographic reach regarding patient accessibility, presenting challenges for study recruitment and accrual. Thus, the development of novel, patient-centered (PC) strategies (e.g., the use of online technologies) to support recruitment and streamline study procedures are necessary. This research focused on an implementation evaluation of a design innovation with implementation outcomes as communicated by study staff and patients for CoE and PC approaches for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for patients with vasculitis.

health care sciences & services

A Modest Proposal for a New Way Forward for Clinical Research: Involve Insurance Companies

Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Publicly Funded Clinical Trials and the Future of Cancer Care

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research

Little to lose and no other options: Ethical issues in efforts to facilitate expanded access to investigational drugs

Making the Ethical Oversight of All Clinical Trials Fit for Purpose

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided

A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

Show them the money: a multi-stakeholder perspective on reforming clinical trial participant compensation

Improving Preclinical Development of Novel Interventions to Treat Pain: Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results

Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible

Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement

The Critical Role of Academic Clinical Trials in Pediatric Cancer Drug Approvals: Design, Conduct, and Fit for Purpose Data for Positive Regulatory Decisions

Academia and society should join forces to make anti‐cancer treatments more affordable

Brief of the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation to the science and technology review

Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

Clinical Study Report and Individual Participant Data Transparency for US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Anticancer Drugs: A Call for Systematic Data Availability

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE: New Thinking to Incentivize Drug Development

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

A study of implementation factors for a novel approach to clinical trials: constructs for consideration in the coordination of direct-to-patient online-based medical research