Search

Abstract Objective The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration. Design and setting We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. Methods We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators. Results Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%). Conclusions In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.

Abstract Background Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials. Methods In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis. Results A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated. Conclusions Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Objectives Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.Design Repeated cross sectional study.Setting Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).Participants RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292).Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reportedResults The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%–79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%–82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%–72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%–83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%–80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.Conclusions In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.

BackgroundWe previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs.Methods and findingsWe included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations.ConclusionsWe have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Abstract Background Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. Objectives and methods Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. Discussion The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

Background Conducting high quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) is challenging and costly. The costs of investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in IITs and the role of hospital pharmacies in the planning of IITs are unclear. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare planned and actual costs of IMPs in Swiss IITs, to examine potential reasons for differences, and to gather stakeholder views about hospital services for IITs. Methods We included all IITs with IMP services from the Basel hospital pharmacy invoiced between January 2014 and June 2020 (n = 24). We documented trial and IMP characteristics including planned and actual IMP costs. Our working definition for a substantial cost difference was that the actual IMP costs were more than 10% higher than the planned IMP costs in a trial. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators, clinical trials unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and qualitatively analyzed transcribed interviews. Results For 13 IITs we observed no differences between planned and actual costs of IMPs (median, 11’000 US$; interquartile range [IQR], 8’882–16’302 US$), but for 11 IITs we found cost increases from a median of 11’000 US$ (IQR, 8’922–36’166 US$) to a median over 28’000 US$ (IQR, 13’004–49’777 US$). All multicenter trials and 10 of 11 IITs with patients experienced substantial cost differences. From the interviews we identified four main themes: 1) Patient recruitment and organizational problems were identified as main reasons for cost differences, 2) higher actual IMP costs were bearable for most investigators, 3) IMP services for IITs were not a priority for the hospital pharmacy, and 4) closer collaboration between clinical trial unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and sufficient staff for IITs at the hospital pharmacy could improve IMP services. Conclusions Multicenter IITs enrolling patients are particularly at risk for higher IMP costs than planned. These trials are more difficult to plan and logistically challenging, which leads to delays and expiring IMP shelf-lives. IMP services of hospital pharmacies are important for IITs in Switzerland, but need to be further developed.

Background and Purpose: Serum total cholesterol (TC) concentrations are affected by several factors including ethnicity, diet, geographic, and environmental determinants, and are related to another disease, including hypothyroidism, and renal and liver disease. It is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly if associated with high levels of serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL). The distribution of TC levels within populations may be useful, and the current study aimed to determine the reference values and specific cut points in a population sample from Mashhad, Iran. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted, and data was collected from 6518 individuals (2483 men and 4035 women) aged 25–64 year-old living in Mashhad city using a stratified cluster random sampling design. Reference values for borderline and high TC levels in three age groups were obtained using a percentile regression model. Data were analyzed using Quantreg Software Package and R Ver. 3.1.2 Software. Results: Within the population sample, 38% of the subjects were male and 62% of them were female. The mean and standard deviation for age were found to be 47.07±9 years and 45.28±9 years for men and women, respectively. Percentile regression showed that borderline TC levels for men and women aged 25-64 years were 198-216 mg/dl and 176-243mg/dl, respectively. The values for defining high TC levels were also 226-239 mg/dl in men and 202 - 271 mg/dl in women. Conclusion: Our study estimated reference values and cut points for borderline and high TC separately in both men and women, and age-related sub-groups for a population derived from Mashhad. These findings could be used in local policy plans to allocate health resources.

Background We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. Methods and findings We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. Conclusions We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research., Author(s): Benjamin Speich 1,2,*, Dmitry Gryaznov 1, Jason W. Busse 3,4, Viktoria L. Gloy 1, Szimonetta Lohner 5,6, Katharina Klatte 7, Ala Taji Heravi 1,8, Nilabh Ghosh 1, Hopin Lee [...]

Background and Objectives: Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging and resource intensive. Funders and academic investigators depend on limited financial resources and, therefore, need empirical data for optimal budget planning. However, current literature lacks detailed empirical data on resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored RCTs. The aim of this study is to systematically collect cost data from investigator-sponsored RCTs from Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: Principal investigators were asked to share their RCT cost and resource use data and enter it into an online case report form. We assessed cost patterns, cost drivers, and specific cost items, examined costs by study phase (planning-, conduct-, and finalization phase), compared planned with actual RCT costs, and explored differences in cost patterns across countries, medical fields, and intervention types., Results: We included 93 RCTs which were initiated in Switzerland (n = 53; including eight conducted in low- and lower middle-income countries), Germany (n = 22), and the UK (n = 18). The median total trial cost in our RCT sample was $645,824 [interquartile range (IQR), $269,846-$1,577,924]. The median proportion of the total costs spent for planning phase was 27.5% [IQR, 20.6%-39.7%], for conduct phase 57.3% [IQR, 44.4%-66.3%], and for finalization phase 12.7% [IQR, 8.5%-19.3%] with little variation across countries. The items that contributed most to the total costs were protocol writing (7.2%; IQR 3.8%-10.6%), data management (5.0%; IQR 2.2%-8.1%) and follow-up (4.5%; IQR 2.3%-8.4%). Of the 66 RCTs with an available original budget, 46 (69.7%) exceeded the budget by over 50%. Use of routinely collected data to assess primary outcomes was independently associated with lower per patient- and lower total trial costs., Conclusion: Over a quarter of total trial costs were incurred in the planning phase, which is typically not fully funded. Two-thirds of RCTs exceeded their budget by more than 50%. Investigators and funders should consider empirical cost data to improve budgeting and funding practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest B.S. and M.B. report an unrestricted grant from Moderna for a study outside of the submitted work. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After basic immunization with 2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, only a small proportion of patients who are severely immunocompromised generate a sufficient antibody response. Hence, we assessed the additional benefit of a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with different levels of immunosuppression., Methods: In this observational extension of the COVERALL trial (Corona Vaccine Trial Platform), we recruited patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (ie, lung and kidney transplant recipients). We collected blood samples before and 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with either mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants showing an antibody response (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test; threshold ≥100 U/mL) 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We also compared the proportion of patients who reached the primary outcome from basic immunization (the first and second vaccines) to the third vaccination., Results: Nearly all participants (97.2% [95% CI, 95.9%-98.6%], 564/580) had an antibody response. This response was comparable between mRNA-1273 (96.1% [95% CI, 93.7%-98.6%], 245/255) and BNT162b2 (98.2% [95% CI, 96.7%-99.6%], 319/325). Stratification by cohort showed that 99.8% (502/503) of people living with HIV and 80.5% (62/77) of recipients of solid organ transplants achieved the primary endpoint. The proportion of patients with an antibody response in solid organ transplant recipients improved from the second vaccination (22.7%, 15/66) to the third (80.5%, 62/77)., Conclusions: People living with HIV had a high antibody response. The third vaccine increased the proportion of solid organ transplant recipients with an antibody response. Clinical Trials Registration.  NCT04805125 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. C. B. has received, in the 36 months prior to the submission of this manuscript, grants, support for traveling, consultancy fees, and honorarium from Gilead, BMS, ViiV Healthcare, Roche, and Pfizer that were not related to this project. He served as the president of the Association contre le HIV et autres infections transmissibles from 2007 to June 2022. In this function, he received support for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, BMS, and MSD. A. T. received a consultant fee from Roche and unrestricted research funding from Gilead and Roche not related to this study. D. L. B. received honoraria for advisory boards from Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and ViiV outside of the study. H. F. G., outside of this study, reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the SHCS; unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences and the Yvonne Jacob Foundation; and personal fees from consulting, advisory boards, or data safety monitoring boards for Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, and Novartis. H. F. G.’s institution received money for participation in the following clinical COVID-19 studies: 540-7773/5774 (Gilead), TICO (ACTIV-3, INSIGHT/National Institutes of Health), and Morningsky (Roche). A. R. reports support to his institution for advisory boards and/or travel grants from MSD, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer and an investigator-initiated trial grant from Gilead Sciences; all remuneration went to his home institution and not to A. R. personally, and all remuneration was provided outside the submitted work. A. T., outside of this study, reports SARS-CoV-2 serology grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the SHCS, and an unrestricted research grant from Gilead Sciences. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Extension of the COVERALL (COrona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform) randomized trial showed noninferiority in antibody response of the third dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine (95.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 91.9%-98.7%]) compared to Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (98.1% [95% CI, 95.9%-100.0%]) in individuals with different levels of immunosuppression (difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -6.8% to 1.3%])., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. S. and M. B. received a research grant from Moderna for the conduct of this study. H. C. B. has received in the 36 months prior to the submission of this manuscript grants, support for traveling, consultancy fees and honorarium from Gilead, BMS, ViiV Healthcare, Roche, and Pfizer that were not related to this project. He served as the president of the Association contre le HIV et autres infections transmissibles until June 2022. In this function he has received support for the SHCS from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, BMS, and MSD. I. A. A. has received honoraria from MSD, Sanofi, and travel grant from Gilead Sciences and is supported by a research grant from the Promedica Foundation (all not related to this study). A. T. received a consultant fee from Roche and has received unrestricted research funding from Gilead and Roche not related to this study. D. L. B. received honoraria for advisory boards from the companies Gilead, MSD, and ViiV outside of the study. H. F. G., outside of this study, reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the SHCS; unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences, Roche, and Yvonne Jacob Foundation; and personal fees from consulting or advisory boards or data and safety monitoring boards for Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Mepha, and Sandoz. H. F. G.'s institution received money for participation in the following clinical COVID-19 studies: 540-7773/5774 (Gilead), TICO (ACTIV-3, INSIGHT/NIH), and the Morningsky study (Roche). N. J. M. received honoraria for advisory boards from the companies Pfizer and Takeda outside of the study. A. R. reports support to his institution for advisory boards and/or travel grants from MSD, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Moderna, and an investigator-initiated trial grant from Gilead Sciences. All remuneration went to his home institution and not to A. R. personally, and all remuneration was provided outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)