Search

Abstract Background A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCP-compliant data management in multinational clinical trials. Methods International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials. Results The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff. Conclusions The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres.

Abstract Background The use of Clinical Data Management Systems (CDMS) has become essential in clinical trials to handle the increasing amount of data that must be collected and analyzed. With a CDMS trial data are captured at investigator sites with "electronic Case Report Forms". Although more and more of these electronic data management systems are used in academic research centres an overview of CDMS products and of available data management and quality management resources for academic clinical trials in Europe is missing. Methods The ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) data management working group conducted a two-part standardized survey on data management, software tools, and quality management for clinical trials. The questionnaires were answered by nearly 80 centres/units (with an overall response rate of 47% and 43%) from 12 European countries and EORTC. Results Our survey shows that about 90% of centres have a CDMS in routine use. Of these CDMS nearly 50% are commercial systems; Open Source solutions don't play a major role. In general, solutions used for clinical data management are very heterogeneous: 20 different commercial CDMS products (7 Open Source solutions) in addition to 17/18 proprietary systems are in use. The most widely employed CDMS products are MACRO™ and Capture System™, followed by solutions that are used in at least 3 centres: eResearch Network™, CleanWeb™, GCP Base™ and SAS™. Although quality management systems for data management are in place in most centres/units, there exist some deficits in the area of system validation. Conclusions Because the considerable heterogeneity of data management software solutions may be a hindrance to cooperation based on trial data exchange, standards like CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standard Consortium) should be implemented more widely. In a heterogeneous environment the use of data standards can simplify data exchange, increase the quality of data and prepare centres for new developments (e.g. the use of EHR for clinical research). Because data management and the use of electronic data capture systems in clinical trials are characterized by the impact of regulations and guidelines, ethical concerns are discussed. In this context quality management becomes an important part of compliant data management. To address these issues ECRIN will establish certified data centres to support electronic data management and associated compliance needs of clinical trial centres in Europe.

Background: Treatment of patients with late-stage parkinsonism is often sub-optimal. Objective: To test the effectiveness of recommendations by a movement disorder specialist with expertise in late-stage parkinsonism. Methods: Ninety-one patients with late-stage parkinsonism considered undertreated were included in apragmatic a pragmatic multi-center randomized-controlled trial with six-month follow-up. The intervention group received a letter with treatment recommendations to their primary clinician based on an extensive clinical assessment. Controls received care as usual. The primary outcome was the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)part-II (Activities of Daily Living). Other outcomes included quality-of-life (PDQ-8), mental health (UPDRS-I), motor function (UPDRS-III), treatment complications (UPDRS-IV), cognition (Mini-mental-state-examination), non-motor symptoms (Non-Motor-Symptoms-scale), health status (EQ-5D-5L) and levodopa-equivalent-daily-dose (LEDD). We also assessed adherence to recommendations. In addition to intention-to-treat analyses, a per-protocol analysis was conducted. Results: Sample size calculation required 288 patients, but only 91 patients could be included. Treating physicians followed recommendations fully in 16 (28%) and partially in 21 (36%) patients. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in primary outcome (between-group difference = –1.2, p = 0.45), but there was greater improvement for PDQ-8 in the intervention group (between-group difference = –3.7, p = 0.02). The per-protocol analysis confirmed these findings, and showed less deterioration in UPDRS-part I, greater improvement on UPDRS-total score and greater increase in LEDD in the intervention group. Conclusions: The findings suggest that therapeutic gains may be reached even in this vulnerable group of patients with late-stage parkinsonism, but also emphasize that specialist recommendations need to be accompanied by better strategies to implement these to further improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Late‐stage parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease (PD) are insufficiently studied population. Although neuropsychiatric symptoms (eg, psychosis, depression, anxiety, behavioral problems) are frequently present, their prevalence and clinical predictors remain unknown. Objective: To determine the prevalence and predictors of neuropsychiatric symptoms in late‐stage PD. Methods: We conducted a multinational study of patients with PD with ≥7 years disease duration and either a Hoehn and Yahr stage ≥4 or a Schwab and England score ≤ 50% in the on stage. Neuropsychiatric symptoms were assessed through interviews with carers using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, with a frequency × severity score ≥ 4, indicating clinically relevant symptoms. The determinants analyzed were demographic characteristics, medication, and motor and nonmotor symptoms. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed on predictors of clinically relevant neuropsychiatric symptoms. Results: A total of 625 patients were recruited in whom the Neuropsychiatric Inventory could be completed. In 92.2% (576/625) of the patients, at least 1 neuropsychiatric symptom was present, and 75.5% (472/625) had ≥1 clinically relevant symptom. The most common clinically relevant symptoms were apathy (n = 242; 38.9%), depression (n = 213; 34.5%), and anxiety (n = 148; 23.8%). The multivariate analysis revealed unique sets of predictors for each symptom, particularly the presence of other neuropsychiatric features, cognitive impairment, daytime sleepiness. Conclusion: Neuropsychiatric symptoms are common in late‐stage PD. The strongest predictors are the presence of other neuropsychiatric symptoms. Clinicians involved in the care for patients with late‐stage PD should be aware of these symptoms in this specific disease group and proactively explore other psychiatric comorbidities once a neuropsychiatric symptom is recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A novel class of nonconventional amphiphiles, where the hydrophilic group is grafted lateral to a rodlike rigid core, has been synthesized. The calamitic units arrange parallel to each other, competing with the segregation of the hydrophilic groups. Different columnar mesophases were found and it is proposed that the columns represent ribbons comprising rigid terphenyl units.

Background: Somatostatin analogs have been shown to control the growth of well-differentiated metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Their effect on overall survival is a matter of debate. We analyzed the prognostic significance of early treatment with octreotide LAR and of hepatic tumor load in the PROMID trial cohort. Patients and Methods: Between 2001 and 2008, 85 treatment-naïve patients were randomly assigned to monthly octreotide LAR 30 mg or placebo until tumor progression or death. Post-study treatment was at the discretion of the investigator. Upon disease progression, 38 out of 43 placebo patients (88.4%) received octreotide LAR. For survival, patients were followed until May 2014. Results: Forty-eight out of 85 patients (56.5%) died. In 38 patients (79.2%), death was tumor related. The median overall survival (84.7 and 83.7 months) was only slightly different in patients assigned to octreotide and placebo [HR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.47-1.46); p = 0.51]. The median overall survival was 84.7 months for all 85 patients, 107.6 months in the low-tumorload (n = 64) and 57.5 months in the high-tumor-load (n = 21) subgroups [HR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.36-4.55); p = 0.002]. There was a trend towards improved overall survival in patients with a low hepatic tumor load receiving octreotide compared to placebo ['median not reached' and 87.2 months; HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29-1.2); p = 0.142]. Conclusion: The extent of tumor burden is a predictor for shorter survival. Overall survival was similar in patients receiving octreotide LAR or placebo treatment at randomization. Crossover of the majority of placebo patients to octreotide LAR may have confounded the data on overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCPcompliant data management in multinational clinical trials. Methods: International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials. Results: The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff. Conclusions: The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]