scholarly journals History of academia clinical trial regulation: the background on the clinical trials act

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 159-163
Author(s):  
Yasumasa Kakei ◽  
Yoji Nagai ◽  
Takumi Hasegawa ◽  
Masaya Akashi
2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Carlo Petrini ◽  
Brian Godman ◽  
Corrado Barbui

Abstract The principle of pragmatism in clinical trials has been broadly recognised as a way to close the gap between research and practice. In this contribution, we argue that the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials in Europe may be hampered by poor implementation of current European Union's Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014.


Author(s):  
M.S. Rafii ◽  
S. Zaman ◽  
B.L. Handen

The NIH-funded Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium Down Syndrome (ABC-DS) and the European Horizon 21 Consortium are collecting critical new information on the natural history of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) biomarkers in adults with Down syndrome (DS), a population genetically predisposed to developing AD. These studies are also providing key insights into which biomarkers best represent clinically meaningful outcomes that are most feasible in clinical trials. This paper considers how these data can be integrated in clinical trials for individuals with DS. The Alzheimer’s Clinical Trial Consortium - Down syndrome (ACTC-DS) is a platform that brings expert researchers from both networks together to conduct clinical trials for AD in DS across international sites while building on their expertise and experience.


2021 ◽  
pp. 163-176
Author(s):  
Edward Shorter

Most knowledge about disease, drug treatment, and drug toxicity has come from naturalistic observations by smart physicians using their past learning and experience as controls. Paul Leber, chief of psychopharmacology at FDA, made a career out of saying that controlled trials are needed to tell if a drug works. The history of clinical trials is significant because clinical trials gave psychopharmacology the appearance of science. This chapter elaborates that the reason clinicians have been so ready to prescribe medications of doubtful efficacy to patients with such questionable diagnoses as “major depression” is that the voice of science seems to speak from the doctor's chair. The chapter examines the two approaches to knowing if a drug works: to look for the “wow” factor or to run a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) and look at the numbers.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5819-5819
Author(s):  
Jordon Jaggers ◽  
Heidi D. Klepin ◽  
Tanya M. Wildes ◽  
Rebecca L. Olin ◽  
Andrew S. Artz ◽  
...  

Introduction: Clinical trial development and enrollment are pivotal to advancing cancer outcomes. Novel treatment modalities such as Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is an intensive therapy that has altered the landscape of hematologic malignancy therapies, with several FDA approvals based on Phase I-II studies. Strict eligibility criteria are implemented to ensure safety of trial participants; however, these criteria can lead to barriers to patient enrollment, hinder the generalizability of the study, and result in a population of participants not representative of those who would benefit from therapy. The aim of this proposal is to characterize inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials for CAR-T cellular therapy in adults with hematologic malignancies. Methods: The U.S. National Library of Medicine's Clinical Trial database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies was accessed June 2019 to assemble a list of studies with the following filters applied: hematologic, recruiting, not yet recruiting, not recruiting, active, completed, suspended, terminated studies, interventional studies, CAR, CAR T, chimeric antigen receptor, CAR NK, adult, older adult, early phase 1, phase 1, phase 2, phase 3. From this, 95 studies populated, 84 were utilized in this study and 11 studies excluded due to non-hematologic malignancy. Results: We analyzed 84 CAR-T clinical trials targeting multiple diseases (Table 1) including; acute lymphoblastic (n=7) and myeloid leukemia (n=2); lymphoma (n=6); multiple myeloma (n=40); multiple hematologic malignancies (n=27) and other (n=2). The majority of studies were phase 1 (n=47) or phase 1/2 (n=28). Upper age limit restrictions were in place for 53/84 (63%) of trials. Trials included the AYA population (n=5), ≤ age 65 (n=1), ≤ age 70 or 73 (n=26), ≤ age 75 or 78 (n=12), ≤ age 80 or 85 (n=9). Of the 84 trials, 65 (77%) had performance status inclusion criteria, most commonly was status ECOG 0-2 (n=23) and ECOG 0-1 (n=24). Patients were excluded for a history of a separate or concurrent malignancy in 52/84 (62%) trials, CNS disease was excluded in 45/84 (54%) trials and 70/84 (83%) clinical trials excluded infectious diseases; HIV (n=69) and Hepatitis B/C (n=64). Many studies had restrictions for impairment in organ function; renal impairment (n=66), cardiac deficits (n=67), and abnormal pulmonary function (n=44). Unique to CAR-T trials, 27/84 had restrictions in place for neurological disorders: epilepsy (n=15), history of brain injury (n=10), dementia (n=8), coordination/movement disorder (n=6), cerebellar disease (n=8), psychosis (n=7), paresis (n=6), history of stroke/aphasia (n=21), and active autoimmune or inflammatory disease of the central nervous system (n=3). Conclusion: CAR-T cellular therapy is a tremendous therapeutic advancement in the medical community. This study emphasizes, in detail, highly variable cross-study inclusion/exclusion criteria for early phase CAR-T studies. This new and promising therapy is actively being studied in a highly select group of patients and may not be generalizable to the older adult with hematologic malignancies due to non-uniform trial criteria. The applicability of this modality should be tempered by the understanding that CAR-T trials have overt age caps, ambiguous performance and comorbidity exclusions, and neurologic exclusions and play a role in limiting patient accessibility to novel clinical trial therapy. Confirmatory prospective and observational studies of CAR-T therapy in representative populations are a high priority. 1. Brudno JN, Kochenderfer JN. Toxicities of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: recognition and management. 2016 127:3321-3330. Doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-04-703751 2. Kim ES, Bruinooge SS, Roberts S, et al. Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3737-3744. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7916 3. Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, and Bleyer A. The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2016; 36:185-198. Doi:10.1200/EDBK\_156686 Disclosures Wildes: Janssen: Research Funding; Carevive: Consultancy. Olin:Spectrum: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Jaglowski:Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding. William:Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Defined Health: Consultancy; Techspert: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin, Inc.: Consultancy. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.


1996 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lon S. Schneider ◽  
Jason T. Olin

This article reviews the history of Clinical Global Impressions of Change (CGIC) instruments, their use and limitations in clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease, and the development of the National Institute on Aging's Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change Scale (ADCS-CGIC). Originally, CGICs were simple and unstructured instruments that asked a clinician to rate change over the duration of a clinical trial. The method, however, failed to consistently detect treatment effects, leading to the development of more structured and subsequently validated approaches, such as the Clinician Interview-Based Impression Scale (CIBI) and the ADCS-CGIC. Both are currently used in clinical trials. The implications and importance of choosing an appropriate global rating are discussed.


2020 ◽  
pp. 119-134
Author(s):  
Oliver Quarrell

This chapter explains some of the research activities which are currently in place. It describes the global research platform called ENROLL-HD. It also describes the process of undertaking a clinical trial. The current clinical trials are focusing on lowering the amount of huntingtin in the cells of the brain especially the caudate and putamen nuclei. The plan is to interfere with the chemical message between the gene and the protein-making machinery of the cell. These drugs are called anti-sense oligonucleotides (ASOs). It is not known if these treatments will result in an alteration of the natural history of Huntington’s disease (HD) but there is hope because the treatment does not rely upon an understanding of the abnormal function of the abnormal huntingtin protein. Currently, the treatments are developed by spinal injections but a future development will be to have drugs which do not have have to be given by spinal injection. This work is contrasted with ideas of gene editing. Brief mention is made to understand genetic factors other than the length of the CAG repeat which influence the age of onset because such an understanding can lead to new avenues for drug treatments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-140
Author(s):  
Amanda E. Kowalski

Decades of evidence reveal a complicated relationship between mammograms and mortality. Mammograms may detect deadly cancers early, but they may also lead to the diagnosis and potentially fatal treatment of cancers that would never progress to cause symptoms. I provide a brief history of the evidence on mammograms and mortality, focusing on evidence from clinical trials, and I discuss how this evidence informs mammography guidelines. I then explore the evolution of all-cause mortality relative to breast cancer mortality within an influential clinical trial. I conclude with some responses to the evolving evidence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-484
Author(s):  
Brijesh Regal

Recent history of clinical trials in India has been mired in avoidable controversies. Negative public perception and consequent reactions by government and judiciary have led to a virtual blockade of clinical trials in the country. This article dispassionately analyses the fiascos that happened in the past few years, describes how folklore disseminated by media, civil society and experts created a myth about ‘liberalisation’ of regulations and presents facts about regulatory amendments. The causes of recent non-compliances are discussed and real fault-lines are identified. The article posits that territorial laws must remain harmonised with contemporary international standards for regulating global activities like clinical trials. Fixing what was not broken has already caused substantial harm and Indian regulators have done well by reversing the unnecessary tinkering recommended by some quasi-experts. Professional self-regulation along with implementation of existing regulations are proposed as the best solutions for gaining India’s place on the global clinical trials’ growth curve.


2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1564-1567
Author(s):  
Andrew C Faust ◽  
Tammy Chung ◽  
Mark Feldman

On October 25, 2011, Eli Lilly and Company announced the voluntary withdrawal of Xigris (drotrecogin alfa [activated]) following the negative results of its most recent clinical trial, the PROWESS-SHOCK study. The purpose of this commentary is to briefly review the history of drotrecogin alfa, discuss issues surrounding early cessation of clinical trials for benefit, and highlight the scientific and ethical dilemmas faced when deciding whether or not to stop a trial early for benefit. This review should serve as an introduction to the topic of stopping trials early for benefit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document