Search

AbstractPurposeMaterials and MethodsResultsConclusions\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for guiding rehabilitation interventions. However, CPGs specifically addressing rehabilitation for osteoporosis patients remain scarce in the literature. This review aims to present, compare, and summarize recent guidelines and evidence, highlighting best practices in osteoporosis rehabilitation management.A total of 19 guidelines were identified following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Three independent appraisers assessed the quality of each CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II (AGREE II) instrument. Standardized domain and overall quality scores were calculated, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the level of agreement among the appraisers.Agreement among appraisers for AGREE II scores ranged from moderate to very good (ICC = 0.60 to 0.90). The quality of the included CPGs varied significantly, with AGREE sub-scores ranging from 48.25% to 75.73%. The Level of Evidence (LoE) and Grade of Recommendation (GoR) differed across the guidelines included in this review. Information on exercise types, intensity, frequency, duration, and contraindications were inconsistent among CPGs.Recommendations regarding exercise parameters were often vague and inconsistent between CPGs, necessitating critical evaluation by healthcare providers when making clinical decisions.The global incidence of osteoporosis is substantial and a proportional rise in cases is anticipated as the population’s average age continues to increase.Currently, national and international guidelines for managing fragile bones in individuals with osteoporosis lack clarity and consistency regarding the rehabilitation perspective, particularly concerning the recommended intensity, repetition, duration, and frequency of interventions.Healthcare professionals are encouraged to recommend physical activities for individuals with osteoporosis that focus on adaptive therapeutic exercises, such as weight-bearing exercises (primarily low-impact), muscle-strengthening exercises, resistance training, and balance training.The global incidence of osteoporosis is substantial and a proportional rise in cases is anticipated as the population’s average age continues to increase.Currently, national and international guidelines for managing fragile bones in individuals with osteoporosis lack clarity and consistency regarding the rehabilitation perspective, particularly concerning the recommended intensity, repetition, duration, and frequency of interventions.Healthcare professionals are encouraged to recommend physical activities for individuals with osteoporosis that focus on adaptive therapeutic exercises, such as weight-bearing exercises (primarily low-impact), muscle-strengthening exercises, resistance training, and balance training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In alignment with the ICH guideline for Good Clinical Practice [ICH E6(R2)], quality tolerance limit (QTL) monitoring has become a standard component of risk‐based monitoring of clinical trials by sponsor companies. Parameters that are candidates for QTL monitoring are critical to participant safety and quality of trial results. Breaching the QTL of a given parameter could indicate systematic issues with the trial that could impact participant safety or compromise the reliability of trial results. Methods for QTL monitoring should detect potential QTL breaches as early as possible while limiting the rate of false alarms. Early detection allows for the implementation of remedial actions that can prevent a QTL breach at the end of the trial. We demonstrate that statistically based methods that account for the expected value and variability of the data generating process outperform simple methods based on fixed thresholds with respect to important operating characteristics. We also propose a Bayesian method for QTL monitoring and an extension that allows for the incorporation of partial information, demonstrating its potential to outperform frequentist methods originating from the statistical process control literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective We attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats. Results Only 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects.

Background: Clinical trials aim to improve health care by reducing treatment costs, enhancing quality, and advancing the discovery of safe treatments. Notably, limited knowledge among resident doctors may impact research quality. Aims and Objectives: The study seeks to evaluate awareness and knowledge of clinical trials among undergraduate, intern, and postgraduate medical students. Materials and Methods: It was an observational, cross-sectional study conducted on 300 medical students over 3 months after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC). The pre-validated questionnaire containing 24 items was administered through email, WhatsApp, or in person. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: In the study, 96.7% of participants believe the necessity of clinical trials. Notably, 72% of undergraduates and 76% of postgraduates express willingness to participate in a clinical trial. Furthermore, 93% of participants view trials as vital for innovative therapies, and 74.3% believe that they enhance health-care services. Knowledge gaps in clinical trials were evident: 56.3% of participants knew good clinical practice guidelines, 46.7% of participants were aware of them, and only 12.3% of participants knew the IEC role. However, 66.7% of participants recognized the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and IEC approvals as crucial for trials, and 53.7% of participants identified DCGI as the regulatory authority. 68.3% of participants could not define a placebo-controlled trial. However, 75% of participants were aware of the consequences of informed consent form non-compliance. Most knew about post-marketing surveillance (80.33%), but awareness of healthy volunteer involvement in Phase 1 was lower (48%). In addition, 62.33% of participants knew about marketing access after Phase 3, and 60% of participants were aware of adverse effects reporting procedures. Conclusion: The study reveals a concerning lack of awareness regarding clinical trials among undergraduate, intern, and postgraduate medical students, emphasizing the need for targeted educational interventions in medical curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats. Results: Only 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Methods The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. Results The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. Conclusion All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders.

To implement the regional guidelines on the management of diabetic foot (DF) into real practice, the diabetiologists working in the public diabetologic services of the Tuscany Region Health Service launched an bottom-up initiative called Diabetic Foot Valley, aiming in creating a community of practice for DF care in Tuscany, Italy. The project, started in 2022 with three meetings dedicated to acute, sub-acute and chronic DF, respectively. The outcomes were articulated into amelioration projects (APs) which targeted the critical issues identified by the analysis performed inside the three meetings and which will be carried on in 2023 and 2024. The outcomes of the APs will be evaluated at the end of their development and compared to the baseline, to evaluate the progress made. The APs already in place are those related to revascularisation, surgical management, local care and networking, with the designing and building of a dedicated electronic platform; others, like those dedicated to offloading, screening and prevention, rehabilitation and follow-up will start in 2024. The project, endorsed by Regione Toscana and European Wound Management Association (EWMA), will serve as a pilot which can be a point of referral for similar experiences in other European countries for the implementation of the international guidelines on DF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Methods: The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. Results: The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. Conclusion: All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became pandemic on 11th March 2020 and it deeply stressed the healthcare system. Cancer patients represent a vulnerable population, so many recommendations have been approved to ensure optimal management. Clinical research was notably impacted by COVID too. This review aims to analyze the challenges occurred during a pandemic for the management of enrolled patients (enrollment, use of telemedicine visits, study procedures) and for the clinical trials system (from feasibility to selection visit, site initiation visit, monitorings, use of e-signature, deviations and discontinuations). Methods: The studies included in the present review were selected from PubMed/Google Scholar/ScienceDirect databases. Results: During the first phase of pandemic many clinical trials were suspended in accrual and, as the pandemic progressed, recommendations were established to guarantee the safety and the continuity of care of enrolled patients. In addition, lot of new strategies was found during the pandemic to reduce the negative consequences on clinical trial performance and to guarantee new opportunities of care in the respect of good clinical practice (GCP) in a bad scenario. Conclusions: Among all modifiers, investigators would prefer to maintain the positive ones such as pragmatic and simplified trial designs and protocols, reducing in-person visits when not necessary and to minimizing sponsor and contract research organizations (CROs) visits.

This paper outlines the indications of good clinical practice for the treatment of depression on the basis of the latest update of the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and of the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT), documents that are a benchmark worldwide. Therefore, they will be used to draw indications for the Italian context. We will focus on the role played by cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), in its various forms, in the treatment of depression at different levels of severity, compared to other treatments and in different phases of treatment. We will define depression, its different levels of severity, and the various forms of CBT considered. We will then describe the methods used to select a particular intervention, not necessarily psychological, depending on the severity of depression or other factors such as cost-benefit to the health system or patient preference. Below we will describe the scientific data on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural interventions compared with others, and recommendations for each level of severity or phase of treatment. We will conclude that the effectiveness of CBT for depression is well established and is often one of the first interventions suggested for this framework. The milder the framework, the more CBT is recommended; the more the framework worsens, or it is in the acute phase, the more it is suggested to be combined with other treatments. Finally, we will reflect on ideas for adapting methods and procedures to the Italian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formulation of precise guidelines for the treatment of dissociative disorders is hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of dissociation. On the contrary, there is unanimous agreement among experts that the term dissociation improperly groups together a vast and heterogeneous group of psychopathological manifestations sustained by different pathogenetic processes that spread throughout psychiatric clinical pictures, complicating their treatment. In view of this limitation, the review reports the guidelines for the treatment of certain dissociative manifestations of the Blue Knot Foundation (2020) of the Australian government’s Department of Health and the guidelines for the treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DDI), the most severe dissociative disorder, drawn up by the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation – ISSTD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traumatic experiences, both episodic and ongoing over time, especially during development, can generate specific clinical pictures such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), but also constitute a psychopathological dimension that spreads across all clinical pictures worsening their prognosis and treatment outcomes. The guidelines presented in this review were developed for the treatment of specific diagnostic categories. Specifically for PTSD by the American Psychiatric Association (APA; 2017), the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; 2018), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) of the United States of America (VA/DoD; 2017). Regarding ASD, indications for the management of patients with this disorder can be found in the 2004 APA guidelines. The UK Psychological Trauma Society (2017), the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS; 2019), and NICE (2018) provide guidelines for cPTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines the indications of good clinical practice for treating bipolar disorder based on the latest National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines update. In light of the interventions considered, studies suggest that structured psychological interventions produce promising efficacy data, not only in acute episodes but can have medium and long-term benefits for patients with bipolar disorders, with a reduction in hospitalization rates and related management costs. The evidence is more solid about individual psychological interventions and collaborative care, while group interventions, integrated and interpersonal cognitive therapy, and psychoeducation for families have shown promising results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of regulatory requirements for expertise of clinical trials documentation, submitted for regulatory authority and ethic committees' approval in EU member countries and Ukraine, outlining the main trends, considering the updated Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which came into effect on January 31, 2023. Among the positive changes are simplification of safety reporting requirements, use of artificial intelligence in the process of clinical trials documentation examination for obtaining regulatory authority and ethic commission approval, introduction of a single portal for submitting materials for clinical trials, and functioning of database for the submission and review of initial Clinical Trial Application documents and obtaining authorization within the EU to facilitate the interaction between applicants and regulatory authority are highlighted. To harmonize Ukraine's regulatory requirements with EU legislation, it is advisable to use a single portal for data exchange and document submission for applicants in regards to clinical trials, regulatory authority and local ethics committees. This will expedite the examination process of clinical trial documentation and simplify the monitoring of document review progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspections of pharmaceutical market participants to verify their compliance with good practice requirements are integral to good regulatory practices of the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The framework for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections is outlined in Decision No. 78 of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission of November 3, 2016.This interview with Alla A. TRAPKOVA, Deputy General Director of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, provides information on the importance, objectives, and rules of conducting GCP inspections.

The International Council for Harmonisation has released a draft version E6(R3) of the Good Clinical Practice Guideline for public consultation. The objective of the revamped guideline is to make the new provisions applicable across diverse clinical trial types and settings and to remain relevant as technological and methodological advances occur. E6(R3) includes profound changes in the structure and content of E6(R2) version, which will impact all the trial conduct processes from planning to reporting. This guideline's focus on principles, digital technology, ethics, and quality will increase the responsibilities of the ethics committees, the investigator, and the sponsor. This brief review discusses the impact of the guideline on trial conduct and the challenges of implementation in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Allied health professionals (AHPs) engaged in research are expected to comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles to protect participant safety and wellbeing and enhance data integrity. Currently, few studies have explored health professionals’ perceptions of implementing and adhering to GCP principles in research with none of these including AHPs. Such knowledge is vital to guide future interventions to increase adherence to GCP principles. This study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers AHPs experience when applying GCP principles to research conduct in a public hospital and health service, as well as their perceived support needs. Methods The study used a qualitative descriptive study approach guided by behaviour change theory. AHPs currently undertaking ethically approved research within a public health service in Queensland, Australia were interviewed to explore barriers and enablers to adherence to GCP principles and support needs, with interview questions guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF was chosen as it allows for a systematic understanding of factors influencing implementation of a specific behaviour (i.e., GCP implementation) and can be used to inform tailored interventions. Results Ten AHPs across six professions were interviewed. Participants identified both enablers and barriers to implementing GCP across nine domains of the TDF and enablers across three additional domains. Examples of enablers included strong beliefs about the importance of GCP in increasing research rigour and participant safety (i.e. from TDF - beliefs about consequences); applying clinical skills and personal attributes when implementing GCP (i.e., skills), available training and support (i.e., environmental context and resources); and alignment with their moral sense to ‘do the right thing’ (i.e., professional identity). Barriers to GCP implementation were generally less commonly reported but included reduced time to implement GCP and a sense of ‘red tape’ (i.e., environmental context and resources), a lack of knowledge of GCP principles (i.e., knowledge) and a fear of making mistakes (i.e., emotions), and varying relevance to individual projects (i.e., knowledge). Suggestions for support were identified beyond training, such as physical resources (e.g., prescriptive checklists, templates and scripts), additional time, and regular one-on-one mentoring support. Conclusion Findings suggest that while clinicians recognise the importance of GCP and want to implement it, they report barriers to its practical implementation. GCP training alone is unlikely to address these barriers to implementing GCP in daily practice. Findings suggest that GCP training may be more useful to AHPs when it is tailored to the allied heath context and supplemented with additional supports including check-ups from experienced researchers and access to prescriptive resources. Future research however is needed to investigate the effectiveness of such strategies.

• Clinical trials help in the formulation of an evidence-based practice of medicine which in turn ultimately promotes good health among the population. • Clinical trials are challenging, time consuming, intensive and need careful planning and execution. • The prerequisites include logistical concerns, infrastructure, appropriately trained human resources, conformity with ethical compliances and regulatory compliances as per the laws. • Execution of clinical trials needs the services of a robust data archival system, electronic medical record systems including PACS with regular appraisal and personnel training for good clinical practices. • Academic units with large clinical experience, expertise and a data rich environment are ideal to get involved in clinical trials. Clinical trials are conducted to evaluate the usefulness of a drug, medical treatment, surgical intervention, radiological procedure, behavioral intervention, or preventive health care strategy. Clinical trials are challenging, time-consuming, and need careful planning and execution. There are certain requirements for an academic unit to be ready for conducting quality research, especially clinical trials. These include logistical concerns, infrastructure, appropriately trained human resources, conformity with ethical compliances and regulatory compliances as per the laws governing the respective geographical regions. Infrastructure requirements include research division space, robust data archival system, archival of imaging data, laboratory services, information technology division and facilities for the appropriate consenting process. Human resources such as principal investigators, data managers, clinical research assistants and biostatisticians are needed to execute the clinical trial as per the study design. Adherence to ethical and regulatory standards; during the conduct of the clinical trial are imperative. Strict compliance with prevailing governing laws in the country is a prerequisite for a department to get involved in clinical trials. The department also needs to put in place an institutional ethics committee; the composition of which is often governed by regulatory laws. The ethical aspects of the trial undergo a formal scrutiny by an Institute ethics committee that ensures quality care to the patient, and safeguards the patient's rights and privileges. The academic unit of any department forms the core for possible research and pursuit of clinical trials. A department with rich clinical experience and expertise in the filed aids in the execution of quality research. The academic department must consider grant writing and multiple center collaborative research projects in due course of time to further enhance the quality of clinical trials and research output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID‐19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last decade many clinical research centers in Italy have increasingly implemented and improved their quality standards and effectiveness of processes through the adoption of a quality management system also according to the certification ISO 9001:2015. Objective: The aim of this project is to evaluate expected benefits and barriers of ISO 9001 certification for a Clinical Trial Center. Material and methods: On April 2021, the Italian Group of Data Manager and Clinical Research Coordinator spread an anonymous online survey to healthcare professionals operating in clinical research and quality management systems at research sites. Results: Reported benefits of ISO oriented Quality Management System adoption include continual improvement and better-quality processes (73.3%), assuring corrective actions (63.6%), planning internal audits (60.2%) and risk management approach (60.7%). The most important barriers to QMS implementation are increased logistical and/or organizational activities (40.9%) and insufficient training on quality programs (29.5%). Conclusions: Implementing a quality management system represents a challenge for the Clinical Trial Center and helps to improve quality standards and risk management approach. The use of electronic tools is poor and could be increased in the future. Lastly, improvement of continuous QMS trainings should be necessary for updating professionals and optimizing activities within the Clinical Trial Center.

Background: Allied health professionals (AHPs) engaged in research are expected to comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles to protect participant safety and wellbeing and enhance data integrity. Currently, few studies have explored health professionals' perceptions of implementing and adhering to GCP principles in research with none of these including AHPs. Such knowledge is vital to guide future interventions to increase adherence to GCP principles. This study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers AHPs experience when applying GCP principles to research conduct in a public hospital and health service, as well as their perceived support needs. Methods: The study used a qualitative descriptive study approach guided by behaviour change theory. AHPs currently undertaking ethically approved research within a public health service in Queensland, Australia were interviewed to explore barriers and enablers to adherence to GCP principles and support needs, with interview questions guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF was chosen as it allows for a systematic understanding of factors influencing implementation of a specific behaviour (i.e., GCP implementation) and can be used to inform tailored interventions. Results: Ten AHPs across six professions were interviewed. Participants identified both enablers and barriers to implementing GCP across nine domains of the TDF and enablers across three additional domains. Examples of enablers included strong beliefs about the importance of GCP in increasing research rigour and participant safety (i.e. from TDF - beliefs about consequences); applying clinical skills and personal attributes when implementing GCP (i.e., skills), available training and support (i.e., environmental context and resources); and alignment with their moral sense to 'do the right thing' (i.e., professional identity). Barriers to GCP implementation were generally less commonly reported but included reduced time to implement GCP and a sense of 'red tape' (i.e., environmental context and resources), a lack of knowledge of GCP principles (i.e., knowledge) and a fear of making mistakes (i.e., emotions), and varying relevance to individual projects (i.e., knowledge). Suggestions for support were identified beyond training, such as physical resources (e.g., prescriptive checklists, templates and scripts), additional time, and regular one-on-one mentoring support. Conclusion: Findings suggest that while clinicians recognise the importance of GCP and want to implement it, they report barriers to its practical implementation. GCP training alone is unlikely to address these barriers to implementing GCP in daily practice. Findings suggest that GCP training may be more useful to AHPs when it is tailored to the allied heath context and supplemented with additional supports including check-ups from experienced researchers and access to prescriptive resources. Future research however is needed to investigate the effectiveness of such strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This manuscript is part of a series developed by the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) to offer training and information for molecular imaging technologists and researchers about various aspects of clinical research. This article covers the topic of Good Clinical Practice, and how that relates to the Code of Federal Regulations that govern clinical research in the US such as 21CFR§312 and the Common Rule. The purpose of this article is to inform technologists and researchers about standard roles, documents, guidance, and processes that are elemental to the conduct of clinical trials, and to offer additional resources for learning about these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During recent years, the burden of bureaucracy in clinical research has increased dramatically, adversely impacting the activity of investigators and clinical research teams. Although compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and other applicable regulations remains unquestionable, their overinterpretation and substitution by the internal operating procedures of sponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) have increased the administrative burden. A survey conducted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO) among 940 investigators confirmed that they considered that the administrative burden in clinical research is excessive; that administrative procedures could be reduced without affecting the safety and the rights of the patients and the quality of the data; and that bureaucracy represents an obstacle for clinical research. A panel of physicians with extensive experience in clinical research, composed by members of the ECRO and the ESMO Scientific Medical and Public Policy divisions, analyzed clinical trial procedures related to administrative workflow, pharmacovigilance, and medical care. The panel identified situations that generate debate between investigators and sponsors/CROs and selected real clinical scenarios that exemplify such situations. The panel discussed and proposed specific recommendations for those situations, based on GCP. This initiative aspires to streamline clinical research procedures and to become a platform for discussion among all clinical trial stakeholders, with the aim of promoting the sustainability of clinical research and the care of cancer patients. • The burden of bureaucracy in clinical research is overwhelming investigators and clinical research teams. • This ESMO manuscript proposes a framework of principles to improve sponsoring and monitoring of clinical trials. • We expect this awareness call to streamline clinical research and to promote the welfare of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Three years after the start of the ESHRE ART Centre Certification (ARTCC) programme, what is the current state of the system, in terms of the interest expressed in it and experiences during the assessment of ART services? SUMMARY ANSWER As of 1 December 2021, 25 European ART centres have been involved in the various stages of certification and the most common recommendations from inspectors were the need for documented training, verification of competencies for all staff members, verification of laboratory and clinical performance indicators, implementation of a quality management system and avoidance of overusing ICSI and add-ons. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY European Union (EU) legislation has included ART activities in the EU Tissue and Cells Directives (EUTCDs). Following inspections by national EUTCD authorities, many details regarding documentation, laboratory environment, handling of reproductive cells and tissues, traceability, coding and patient testing have become standardized. However, the EUTCDs do not cover all ART-specific aspects. For this reason, the ARTCC was established to focus on peculiar areas, including relevant staff qualifications, training, continuing professional development, workload, equipment suitability, (non)-evidence-based laboratory and clinical methods used, treatment approaches according to ESHRE guidelines, recommendations and laboratory and clinical key performance indicators. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The article reviews the state-of-the-art of the ESHRE certification of ART centres for good clinical and laboratory practice over an initial 3-year period of operation, including the number of ART centres involved in the different stages of certification and the most common recommendations by inspectors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In 2016, the ARTCC working group began to establish a new ESHRE ARTCC programme. Since then, the working group has organized 4 preparatory courses and appointed 37 inspectors (19 clinicians, 17 embryologists and one paramedical). A tool to verify compliance with ESHRE recommendations for good laboratory and clinical practice was developed. The ARTCC has been open for applications since September 2018. In Step 1, the applicant enters basic information about the ART centre, staff and ART activities into the application platform. After review and approval, the applicant is given the opportunity to enter Step 2 and provide detailed online checklists on general, laboratory, clinical services and clinical outcomes. Two inspectors (one clinician and one embryologist) independently evaluate the submitted checklists. The condition to proceed to evaluation is a positive mean score (at least 66%) from each of the four checklists. In Step 3, a live site visit (or virtual owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic) is organized and the inspectors prepare a final report with appropriate recommendations. The application may be rejected at any time if the criteria required to advance to the next stage are not met. The ARTCC programme is currently available for European countries listed in ESHRE internal rules, available on the ESHRE website. The certificate is valid for 3 years, after which an application for renewal can be submitted. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Over a 3-year period (until 1 December 2021), 63 ART centres from 25 countries started applying through an online platform. So far, 38 applications did not progress owing to lack of completion of the initial application within a 1-year period or because applications came from non-European countries. Of the remaining 25 applications, 8 centres have been inspected and 7 centres have been certified. The most common recommendations given by inspectors to assessed centres were the need for documented training, verification of competencies, skills and continuing professional development for all staff members, verification of laboratory and clinical performance indicators and implementation of a quality management system. The inspectors identified some recurring areas of medically assisted reproduction that deviate from good practice: the overuse of ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, freeze-all and other add-ons. They often reported that the clinical outcomes could not be objectively assessed because of non-inclusion of the started cycles or the frequent use of freeze-all cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION No major modifications have been made to the application platform and checklists since the early stages of the certification programme. However, in this short time, quite a few changes in clinical practice have occurred, especially concerning the more frequent use of the 'freeze-all' strategy. As a result, problems arose in the evaluation of clinical outcomes. In addition, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, site visits were substituted by the implementation of virtual visits. While this enabled the certification programme to continue, it is possible that certain critical details that would have been noticed during a traditional site visit may have been overlooked. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Regular monitoring of the observations of ARTCC inspectors and analysis of their reports is certainly useful to harmonize inspectors' criteria in the assessment process and to identify chronic deficiencies in clinical and laboratory practice. Non-conformities can be addressed by ESHRE through guidelines and recommendations, as well as through discussion with EU institutions and competent authorities. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The ARTCC programme was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the meetings. The Steering Committee members who are the authors of this article did not receive payments for the completion of this study. The inspectors were remunerated for their work with an honorarium. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) has published the ICH E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guideline, which provides standards for the design, conduct, documentation, and reporting of clinical trials. Revision to E6(R2) is currently underway, aiming to adapt the guidance to the current regulatory environment. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) interviewed stakeholders, gathering their experiences implementing ICH E6 GCP and suggestions for revising the guidance. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using in-depth interviews. Participants were purposefully selected to ensure diversity in geography, research role, and type of institution. Participants reflected on their aspirations for the ICH E6 GCP revision and described sections of the guidance that they found most and least helpful. Narratives were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Results: Many participants found ICH E6 GCP generally clear and helpful. They appreciated that the guidance is globally accepted and serves as a common standard for research worldwide. Participants also noted opportunities for improvement, suggesting that the revised guidance should incorporate flexibility, simplify requirements, and accommodate advances in research conduct. They highlighted areas where language should be updated and concepts clarified and expressed a desire for transparency and inclusiveness in the revision process. Conclusion: Our findings show that many participants view the ICH E6(R2) guidance as helpful overall, although substantial room for improvement remains. We have provided the full report of these findings to ICH in hopes that it will be useful as the E6 GCP guideline is revised.

Abstract Background Patients with COVID-19 may feel under pressure to participate in research during the pandemic. Safeguards to protect research participants include ethical guidelines [e.g. Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice (GCP)], legislation to protect participants’ privacy, research ethics committees (RECs) and informed consent. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) advises researchers to document compliance with these safeguards. Adherence to publication guidelines has been suboptimal in other specialty fields. The aim of this rapid review was to determine whether COVID-19 human research publications report compliance with these ethical safeguards. Methods A rapid systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE using the search term ‘COVID-19’. The search was performed in April 2020 with no start date and repeated to include articles published in November 2020. Filters were ‘Full free text available’ and ‘English Language’. Two reviewers assessed article title, abstracts and full texts. Non-COVID-19 articles and non-clinical studies were excluded. Independent reviewers conducted a second assessment of a random 20% of articles. The outcomes included reporting of compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP, REC approval, informed consent and participant privacy. Results The searches yielded 1275 and 1942 articles of which 247 and 717 were deemed eligible, from the April search and November respectively. The majority of journals had editorial policies which purported to comply with ICMJE ethical standards. Reporting of compliance with ethical guidelines was low across all study types but was higher in the November search for case series and observational studies. Reporting of informed consent for case studies and observational studies was higher in the November search, but similar for case series. Overall, participant confidentiality was maintained but some case studies included a combination of details which would have enabled participant identification. Reporting of REC approval was higher in the November search for observational studies. Conclusions While the majority of journal’s editorial policies purported to support the ethical safeguards, many COVID-19 clinical research publications identified in this rapid review lacked documentation of these important safeguards for research participants. In order to promote public trust, ethical declarations should be included consistently.

Aim/purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the certification process of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) competencies based on a comparison with the project management (PM) certification process. This aim was accomplished by model development.

Introduction: The development of a new chemical entity into a drug is of indispensable importance for the progression of health care. As physicians play the main and important part of any clinical trial, it is necessary to know about their awareness about clinical research, drug development, good clinical practices, and regulatory authorities. Objective: This study was designed to assess and compare the knowledge and awareness toward drug development process among medical interns, dental interns, and postgraduates (PGs). Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study enrolling 186 professionals of medical college and 110 professionals of dental college in Punjab who were given a prevalidated questionnaire that included 27 questions related to knowledge regarding drug development process. Data were analyzed for percentage correct responses, mean values, and intergroup comparison by applying t-test using SPSS version 20, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA. Results: It was found that medical and dental college professionals had a very poor awareness and knowledge about drug development process to the tune of 33%. Professionals of dental college had 53.7% knowledge of clinical research in comparison to 43.2% of medical college. A statistically significant (P < 0.05) difference for sections on drug development, clinical research, and regulatory authority among interns and PGs was found with interns possessing better knowledge. Conclusion: It is concluded that regulatory authorities such as Board of Studies of various medical universities, Dental Council of India, and Medical Council of India must take necessary steps to increase the knowledge of drug development process among dental and medical professionals. Incorporation of this topic in educational curriculum in the initial stages of graduation and postgraduation would be beneficial.

Background: The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is undertaking a major revision of ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP) decided to involve external stakeholders in ICH-GCP renovation. Activities such as surveys and public conferences have taken place in the United States, European Union, and Japan. For stakeholder engagement in Japan, a designated research group conducted a survey of academic stakeholders. Methods: A total of 105 academic stakeholders from 18 institutions responded to the survey. The research group developed recommendations reflecting the survey results and the opinions from patients and the public. Results: The survey showed the top four principles needing renovation were (i) informed consent (Chapter 2.9, 12.4% of respondents believed it needed renovation), (ii) systems for quality assurance (Chapter 2.13, 9.5%), (iii) information on an investigational product (Chapter 2.4, 5.7%), and (iv) procedures on clinical trial information (Chapter 2.10, 5.7%). The top three sections identified as needing renovation were: (i) informed consent (Chapter 4.8, 27.6%), (ii) monitoring (Chapter 5.18, 22.9%), and (iii) composition, functions, and operations of the ethics committee (Chapter 3.2, 14.3%). Recommendations included clarification of ICH-GCP's scope, proportionality in various aspects of clinical trials, diversity and liquidity of ethics committee members, modernization of informed consent procedures, variations in monitoring, and regulatory grade when using real-world data. Conclusion: The recommendations from Japanese investigators and patients have been submitted to the ICH E6 Expert Working Group, which will strengthen the robustness of the GCP renovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]