The carbon footprint of clinical trials: a global survey on the status quo and current regulatory guidance.

INTRODUCTION: All economic sectors including the service sector, along with healthcare, education and research, need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature increases. In this study, we aim to globally assess the awareness and current actions taken by Academic Research Institutions (ARIs) or governments regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for clinical research. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey-based study, which was distributed within the International Clinical Trials Center Network (ICN). The survey population comprised representatives of the ICN who had extensive experience in academic clinical research and profound knowledge and understanding of the local context. RESULTS: The response rate was 80%. Responding ARIs were from 15 different countries and 4 continents. Around half of the ARIs reported that almost none of their research projects considered reducing their carbon footprint. The other half of the ARIs were not familiar with this subject at all. According to 60% of the respondents, greenhouse gas emissions are not assessed by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)/Ethics Committees (ECs) or competent authorities, while 40% did not know. Neither IRBs/ECs nor competent authorities currently advise sponsors and investigators on reducing the carbon footprint of their clinical research projects. As for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in clinical research, virtual conferences and meetings were the most commonly implemented measures by ARIs across all regions. Finally, we have put together an action plan/checklist advising researchers on carbon footprint reduction for clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Currently, greenhouse gas emissions are neglected during the planning phase of a research project, and they are not yet addressed or assessed by default during the approval procedures by IRBs/ECs or competent authorities. Thus, all involved stakeholders within clinical research need to be made aware of it through advice from ARIs and IRBs/ECs, among others.

How COVID-19 changed clinical research strategies: a global survey.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical research has faced new challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to excessive operational demands affecting all stakeholders. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical research strategies and compared different adaptations by regulatory bodies and academic research institutions in a global context, exploring what can be learned for possible future pandemics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and identified and assessed different COVID-19-specific adaptation strategies used by academic research institutions and regulatory bodies. RESULTS: All 19 participating academic research institutions developed and followed similar strategies, including preventive measures, manpower recruitment, and prioritisation of COVID-19 projects. In contrast, measures for centralised management or coordination of COVID-19 projects, project preselection, and funding were handled differently amongst institutions. Regulatory bodies responded similarly to the pandemic by implementing fast-track authorisation procedures for COVID-19 projects and developing guidance documents. Quality and consistency of the information and advice provided was rated differently amongst institutions. CONCLUSION: Both academic research institutions and regulatory bodies worldwide were able to cope with challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic by developing similar strategies. We identified some unique approaches to ensure fast and efficient responses to a pandemic. Ethical concerns should be addressed in any new decision-making process.

The concept of General Consent in Switzerland and the implementation at the University Hospital Zurich, a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: General Consent (GC) allows the further use of health-related data/samples for multiple, unspecified research projects and/or for the collection in databases and biobanks in Switzerland. The application of General Consent in the context of human research is regulated within the scope of the Human Research Act. At the University Hospital Zurich patients are informed about General Consent to which they can agree (GC = yes) or disagree (GC = no) to the use of their routinely collected data/samples in research. In this paper, we investigated the association of demographic and medical factors on a patient's General Consent choice. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we investigated the association of age, gender, number of visits and number of diagnoses on General Consent choice. The study population was stratified by General Consent status group (GC choice: Yes, No, Not issued) and examined by means of descriptive statistics, comparative statistics and a multinomial and logistic regression model. A p-value of 0.001 was determined as significant. RESULTS: The female gender was found to associate with decreased odds in positive General Consent choice (<0.001) whereas age (<0.001) and number of diagnoses (<0.001) were associated with increased odds in positive General Consent choice (reference "GC = no" group). The number of visits (<0.001) as well as the number of diagnoses associated (<0.001) with increased General Consent collection (increase in positive as well as negative General Consent status). CONCLUSION: General Consent is an innovative concept that simultaneously informs patients about human research in accordance with Swiss regulations and promotes research with routinely collected data and biological samples in an era with large information repositories. Our results show that medical and demographic factors may influence a patient's choice. Therefore, approaching these populations and taking additional care to adequately inform and ensure ethical conformity and behaviour is essential. Flexible communication channels may help us reach this goal.