Search

Background and objectives: In Japan, the contribution of clinical research coordinators to trials for drug approval is now well recognized in investigators. In 2013, we initiated a clinical research coordinator hospital certification course at our facility. The purpose of the course is to pre-educate medical staff who are candidates for future roles of clinical research coordinator, and to spread recognition of clinical research. Methods: To obtain information from course participants, we conducted a qualitative study in 2014, using a focus group interview in six participants who had completed the course in 2013. The initial topic was perceptions of the course before and after participation. Other topics were the present status and issues in clinical research coordinators. Results: All participants agreed that the course was acceptable and effective in reexamining their own work and roles from the aspects of clinical research, and that the role of clinical research coordinator itself is not very familiar among staff in the facility. Some participants indicated that even their more senior coworkers have limited recognition about clinical research coordinators. Conclusion: There are few reports that deal with awareness-spreading activities that targeted facility staff in positions other than those related to clinical research. This type of education could be considered to more quickly build support of clinical research

Background: Clinical trials leading to drug approval (registration trials) play a central role in the drug development process, and attention has recently been paid to providing trial results to participants. In the present study, we examined the preferences of participants of registration trials for the provision of trial-related information. Methods: We used questionnaires to survey the preferences of registration trial participants at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima National Hospital. Of the 15 questions, 6 related to participant characteristics and the trials in which they participated, while 9 questions were concerned with preferences for the provision of information. A five-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) was used, and positive answers (strongly agree and agree) were considered to indicate a positive preference. Results: Of the 58 subjects, 1 declined, giving a response rate of 98%. More than 70% of participants preferred to obtain information, even if they had served as controls. More than 80% of participants agreed to obtain information relating to trial results, even if the results were negative, and more than 80% of participants agreed to obtain information on the labeling state of the agent, even if development had ceased. Although more than 60% of participants agreed for the provision of information on their allocation and around more than 70% agreed to the provision of information on registration trials status, significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases (for example, neurological and malignant diseases) agreed to obtain information compared with participants with other types of diseases (for example, acute, chronic, and psychological diseases). More than 50% of participants desired information to be provided directly by the physician, while a considerable number of participants desired information by means of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) (24.4%) or by posted letter (33.3%). Conclusion: The present results suggest the preferences for the provision of individual and overall information concerning research results. However, further study is warranted to determine participant preferences more precisely and the effect of the CRC-initiated infrastructure for providing information on patient satisfaction and for promoting registration trials. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jocmr1494w

The development of new and useful pharmaceutical drugs is essential in order to improve the quality of drug therapeutics. Clinical trials play a central role in drug development. Over time, the clinical trial infrastructure has improved and is now integrating the contribution of clinical research coordinators (CRC). Nevertheless, the attitude of doctors towards clinical trials still favors conventional/historical methodologies. In the present study, we explored the view of doctors towards clinical trials for drug development, in order to improve communication among participants, sponsors, and investigators. A questionnaire was designed for this pilot study. The questionnaire included general attitudes, difficult points, the benefit of doctors in participating as investigators, special attention requirements, and the expected role of CRC in clinical trials for drug approval. In addition, the appropriate use of the outpatient clinic was examined. The questionnaire was provided to doctors in each department of Tokushima University Hospital in 2000 and 2004. Because of the small number of subjects included in this pilot study, no statistical analysis is presented. A total of 89 (81%) and62 (56%) doctors among 110 responded to the survey in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Inquiries about the familiarity of the physicians with clinical trials for drug approval revealed that 84% in 2000 and 66% in 2004 were aware of such trials. The attitude towards participating as investigators in the clinical trials was favorable, with a response of 66% in 2000 and 58% in 2004. Patients’ refusal and the informed consent process were considered difficult areas by many doctors. Expected roles of CRC included activities based on the nurse’s specialty. Although many doctors agreed to take care of the study participants separately from the clinical practice, they lacked the time to do so. In spite of the doctors’ workload reduction by introduction of the CRC concept, their views regarding clinical trials for drug approval remain conventional. Further refinement in the support process by CRC should be considered in our hospital, and the views of the doctors should be investigated in a larger study, in order to promote clinical trials for drug approval in Japan.

Clinical research plays a fundamental role in establishing new treatments. Clinical research coordinators are considered essential in clinical research, and medical professionals such as pharmacists often take on this role. Pharmacy students can be considered future candidates for this task. We used questionnaires to survey the knowledge of and attitudes toward registration trials and clinical research of pharmacy students at Tokushima University Hospital. All pharmacy students (103) to whom questionnaires were sent responded. Almost all respondents were aware of registration trials and clinical research. More than 90% were aware of the existence of clinical research coordinators, and about half (48.6%) understood their role. In clinical research terminology, most respondents were aware of informed consent and related issues, but fewer than 20% were aware of more practical things. In total, 29.1% and 40.8% of the respondents were willing to carry out and coordinate research. These findings suggest that pharmacy students have basic knowledge of clinical research and that many students are willing to carry out and coordinate clinical research. More practical exposure to clinical research may help to strengthen their future contribution. Further studies may help to determine how to provide education on registration trials and clinical research to pharmacy students.

Background: Clinical research plays an important role in establishing new treatments and improving the quality of medical practice. Since the introduction of the concept of clinical research coordinators (CRC) in Japan, investigators and CRC work as a clinical research team that coordinates with other professionals in clinical trials leading to drug approval (registration trials). Although clinical nurses collaborate with clinical research teams, extended clinical research teams that include clinical nurses may contribute to the ethical and scientific pursuit of clinical research. Methods: As knowledge of clinical research is essential for establishing an extended clinical research team, we used questionnaires to survey the knowledge of clinical nurses at Tokushima University Hospital. Five-point and two-point scales were used. Questions as for various experiences were also included and the relationship between awareness and experiences were analyzed. Results: Among the 597 nurses at Tokushima University Hospital, 453 (75.9%) responded to the questionnaires. In Japan, registration trials are regulated by pharmaceutical affairs laws, whereas other types of investigator-initiated research (clinical research) are conducted based on ethical guidelines outlined by the ministries of Japan. Approximately 90% of respondents were aware of registration trials and clinical research, but less than 40% of the nurses were aware of their difference. In clinical research terminology, most respondents were aware of informed consent and related issues, but ≤50% were aware of other things, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, ethical guidelines, Good Clinical Practice, institutional review boards, and ethics committees. We found no specific tendency in the relationship between awareness and past experiences, such as nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research or taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student or a nurse. Conclusions: These findings suggest that clinical nurses have only limited knowledge on clinical research and the importance to have chances to make nurses aware of clinical research-related issues is suggested to establish an extended research team. Because of the study limitations, further study is warranted to determine the role of clinical nurses in establishing a suitable infrastructure for ethical pursuit of clinical research.

Background: Clinical trials leading to regulatory approval, or registration trials, play a central role in the development of drugs and medical devices. The contribution of support staff, such as the clinical research coordinator (CRC) and administrative officers, in registration trials is now widely recognized. Attending to serious adverse events is an important duty of the CRC and investigators alike, and managing these complications and compensation constitutes a key responsibility. We retrospectively examined the frequency of serious adverse events and compensation events reported from 2007 through 2011 at Tokushima University Hospital, an academic hospital in rural Japan. We present herein the results of our analysis. Results: Over the five-year period, 284 subjects participating in 106 registration trials experienced a total of 43 serious adverse events, and eight compensation events were documented. Among the serious adverse events, 35 (81.4%) were considered not related to the investigational drug, and 17 (39.5%) resulted in withdrawal of the study drug. Patients with malignant diseases experienced serious adverse events significantly more frequently compared to those with non-malignant diseases (28.3% versus 8.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). Conclusions: The CRC should be vigilant for serious adverse events in oncology clinical trials due to the generally higher frequency of these complications in subjects with malignancy. However, on an individual basis, the CRC may be seldom involved in the process for compensating serious adverse events. Therefore, the CRC’s ability to share such experiences may serve as an opportunity for educating clinical trial support staff at the study site as well as those at other sites. However, further study is warranted to determine the role of the clinical trial support staff in optimizing methods for managing adverse events requiring compensation in registration trials.

Five-coordinate complexes [M(hfac)2L] (M=Pd, Pt; hfac=1,1,1,5,5,5-hexafluoro-2,4-pentanedionate anion) were produced by the reactions of [M(hfac)2] with equimolar amounts of tertiary phosphines, phosphites, and triphenylarsine. They were characterized by 1H, 13C, 19F, and 31P NMR spectra in solution and several complexes containing bulky phosphines as L were isolated, and structures of [Pd(hfac)2{P(o-tolyl)3}] and [Pt(hfac)2{P(cyclohexyl)3}] were determined by X-ray analysis. Both complexes have very distorted square-pyramidal structures, one of the two hfac anions in either of them spanning the apical and basal coordination sites. NMR spectra at various temperatures disclosed the fluxional behaviors of these complexes which retain the solid-state structures at such low temperatures as −60 °C. Two kinds of twist mechanisms were proposed.

Background Clinical trials play a central role in the establishment of clinical evidence, and the important role of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) in various processes of clinical trials is now widely recognized. In Japan, many CRCs work under the discretion of their hospital and support clinical trials in various areas. Modification of CRC activity pursuant to the types of clinical trials may make roles of the CRC more effective and meaningful. In the present study, we examine the dedicated role of the CRC considering the specialty of a registration trial of a drug for surgical patients used during the operation period. Methods In 2006, we had a chance to support a registration trial of a drug for surgical patients used during the operation period. Regarding the mental and emotional status of possible participants in the present registration trial, we collected data from the perspective of CRCs by focus group interviews involving four CRCs working under the discretion of Tokushima University Hospital. The four CRCs were all nurses and had 7, 4.5, 1, or 0.5 years experience as CRCs, respectively. Results In contrast to clinical trials of drugs for chronic diseases, these often anxious patients must decide whether or not to enter the trial simultaneously with the decision to undergo surgery itself, and all in a relatively limited time after receiving explanation of the trial. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the mental and emotional status of possible participants. Additionally, the cooperation of the relatively large surgical and nursing staff becomes important. In such situations, the following contributions of CRCs were considered to be useful for the harmonious procedure of clinical trials: 1) providing a precise explanation of the trial to the participant and key persons, 2) understanding the needs of the investigators and appropriately assigning themselves roles, and 3) communicating between the investigators and surgical and nursing staff. Conclusion Further study is warranted to evaluate the benefit of the intervention provided by dedicated CRCs in running high quality clinical trials involving surgical patients.