Registration audit of clinical trials given a favourable opinion by UK research ethics committees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine levels of public registration for a cohort of clinical trials reviewed and given a favourable opinion by research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. STUDY DESIGN: Audit of records. SETTING: Clinical trials receiving a favourable ethics opinion between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation between trials on the UK research ethics committee database and any primary registry entry on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or clinicaltrials.gov as of 29 August 2017 (14 to 20 months after the favourable ethics committee opinion). RESULTS: Over the study period 1014 trials received a favourable ethics opinion, with 397 (39%) registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, and 18 with an agreed clinical trial registration deferral. Excluding these trials, the total number subsequently requiring registration was 599, and of these 405 (40% of total) were found to be registered. Follow-up with the 194 investigators or sponsors of trials not found to be registered produced 121 responses with a further 10 (1%) trials having already registered, 55 commitments to register and a variety of other responses. The overall registration rate was therefore 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite researchers and sponsors being reminded that registration of clinical trials is a condition of the research ethics committee (REC) favourable opinion, one-fifth of clinical trials either had not been registered, or their registration could not easily be found, 14 to 20 months after receiving the favourable opinion letter. The methodology trialled here proved effective, and although there are positive indications of a culture change towards greater registration, our results show that more still needs to be done to increase trial registration.

The MUK five protocol: a phase II randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi-centre trial of carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCD) vs. cyclophosphamide, bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (CVD) for first relapse and primary refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell tumour with an annual incidence in the UK of approximately 40-50 per million i.e. about 4500 new cases per annum. The triple combination cyclophosphamide, bortezomib (Velcade®) and dexamethasone (CVD) is an effective regimen at relapse and has emerged in recent years as the standard therapy at first relapse in the UK. Carfilzomib has good activity as a single agent in the relapsed setting, and it is expected that efficacy will be improved when used in combination with dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: MUK Five is a phase II open label, randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi-centre trial that will compare the activity of carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCD) with that of CVD, given over an equivalent treatment period (24 weeks), in participants with multiple myeloma at first relapse, or refractory to no more than 1 line of treatment. In addition, the study also aims to assess the utility of a maintenance schedule of carfilzomib in these participants. The primary objective of the trial is to assess whether CCD provides non-inferior activity in terms of ≥ VGPR rates at 24 weeks, and whether the addition of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib to CCD provides superior activity in terms of progression-free survival, as compared to CCD with no maintenance. Secondary objectives include comparing toxicity profiles, further summarizing and comparing the activity of the different treatment arms and analysis of the effect of each treatment arm on minimal residual disease status. DISCUSSION: The development of carfilzomib offers the opportunity to further explore the anti-tumour efficacy of proteasome inhibition and, based on the available evidence, it is important and timely to obtain data on the activity, toxicity and tolerability of this drug. In contrast to ongoing phase III trials, this phase II trial has a unique subset of participants diagnosed with multiple myeloma at first relapse or refractory to no more than 1 line of treatment and will also evaluate the utility of maintenance with carfilzomib for up to 18 months and investigate minimal residual disease status to provide information on depth of response and the prognostic impact thereof. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered under ISRCTN17354232, December 2012.

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries.

BACKGROUND: In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. RESULTS: Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. CONCLUSION: The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN).

BACKGROUND: Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. METHODS: In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. RESULTS: The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. CONCLUSION: The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.