Toward a global harmonization of service infrastructure in academic clinical trial units: an international survey.

Background: Clinicians around the world perform clinical research in addition to their high workload. To meet the demands of high quality Investigator Initiated Trials (IITs), Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) (as part of Academic Research Institutions) are implemented worldwide. CTUs increasingly hold a key position in facilitating the international mutual acceptance of clinical research data by promoting clinical research practices and infrastructure according to international standards. Aim: In this project, we aimed to identify services that established and internationally operating CTUs - members of the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) - consider most important to ensure the smooth processing of a clinical trial while meeting international standards. We thereby aim to drive international harmonization by providing emerging and growing CTUs with a resource for informed service range set-up. Methods: Following the AMEE Guide, we developed a questionnaire, addressing the perceived importance of different CTU services. Survey participants were senior representatives of CTUs and part of the ICN with long-term experience in their field and institution. Results: Services concerning quality and coordination of a research project were considered to be most essential, i.e., Quality management, Monitoring and Project management, followed by Regulatory & Legal affairs, Education & Training, and Data management. Operative services for conducting a research project, i.e., Study Nurse with patient contact and Study Nurse without patient contact, were considered to be least important. Conclusion: To balance the range of services offered while meeting high international standards of clinical research, emerging CTUs should focus on offering (quality) management services and expertise in regulatory and legal affairs. Additionally, education and training services are required to ensure clinicians are well trained on GCP and legislation. CTUs should evaluate whether the expertise and resources are available to offer operative services.

A Phase 1, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled and Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of the Intranasal DelNS1-nCoV-RBD LAIV for COVID-19 in Healthy Adults.

An intranasal COVID-19 vaccine, DelNS1-based RBD vaccines composed of H1N1 subtype (DelNS1-nCoV-RBD LAIV) was developed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity in healthy adults. We conducted a phase 1 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study on healthy participants, age 18-55 and COVID-19 vaccines naïve, between March and September 2021. Participants were enrolled and randomly assigned (2:2:1) into the low and high dose DelNS1-nCoV-RBD LAIV manufactured in chicken embryonated eggs or placebo groups. The low and high-dose vaccine were composed of 1 × 107 EID50/ dose and 1 × 107.7 EID50/ dose in 0.2 mL respectively. The placebo vaccine was composed of inert excipients/dose in 0.2 mL. Recruited participants were administered the vaccine intranasally on day 0 and day 28. The primary end-point was the safety of the vaccine. The secondary endpoints included cellular, humoral, and mucosal immune responses post-vaccination at pre-specified time-points. The cellular response was measured by the T-cell ELISpot assay. The humoral response was measured by the serum anti-RBD IgG and live-virus neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2. The saliva total Ig antibody responses in mucosal secretion against SARS-CoV-2 RBD was also assessed. Twenty-nine healthy Chinese participants were vaccinated (low-dose: 11; high-dose: 12 and placebo: 6). The median age was 26 years. Twenty participants (69%) were male. No participant was discontinued due to an adverse event or COVID-19 infection during the clinical trial. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (p = 0.620). For the T-cell response elicited after full vaccination, the positive PBMC in the high-dose group increased to 12.5 SFU/106 PMBC (day 42) from 0 (baseline), while it increased to 5 SFU/106 PBMC (day 42) from 2.5 SFU/106 PBMC (baseline) in the placebo group. The high-dose group showed a slightly higher level of mucosal Ig than the control group after receiving two doses of the vaccine (day 31, 0.24 vs. 0.21, p = 0.046; day 56 0.31 vs. 0.15, p = 0.45). There was no difference in the T-cell and saliva Ig response between the low-dose and placebo groups. The serum anti-RBD IgG and live virus neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 were undetectable in all samples. The high-dose intranasal DelNS1-nCoV-RBD LAIV is safe with moderate mucosal immunogenicity. A phase-2 booster trial with a two-dose regimen of the high-dose intranasal DelNS1-nCoV-RBD LAIV is warranted.

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.

Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.

BACKGROUND: The progress of electronic health technologies and biobanks holds enormous promise for efficient research. Evidence shows that studies based on sharing and secondary use of data/samples have the potential to significantly advance medical knowledge. However, sharing of such resources for international collaboration is hampered by the lack of clarity about ethical and legal requirements for transfer of data and samples across international borders. MAIN TEXT: Here, the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) reports the legal and ethical requirements governing data and sample exchange (DSE) across four continents. The most recurring requirement is ethical approval, whereas only in specific conditions approval of national health authorities is required. Informed consent is not required in all sharing situations. However, waiver of informed consent is only allowed in certain countries/regions and under certain circumstances. The current legal and ethical landscape appears to be very complex and under constant evolution. Regulations differ between countries/regions and are often incomplete, leading to uncertainty. CONCLUSION: With this work, ICN illuminates the unmet need for a single international collaborative framework to facilitate DSE. Harmonising requirements for global DSE will reduce inefficiency and waste in research. There are many challenges to realising this ambitious vision, including inconsistent terminology and definitions, and heterogeneous and dynamic legal constraints. Here, we identify areas of agreement and significant difference as a necessary first step towards facilitating international collaboration. We propose the establishment of a working group to continue the comparison across jurisdictions, create a standardised glossary and define a set of basic principles and fundamental requirements for DSE.

Clinical Therapeutics in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a compact territory in Southern China that enjoys a high degree of autonomy. Despite its dense population and uneven wealth distribution, infant mortality is low and life expectancy is long. The health service is more hospital and clinic based than community based. This seems cost-effective while professional standards are high and rigorously maintained. Drug registration follows American and European requirements. Hong Kong is a part of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme, which brings a high standard of drug regulation. Hong Kong is a good choice for clinical trials because the subjects are Chinese and protocols in English do not need to be translated. There are also 2 well-established clinical trials centers in university hospitals that also run Phase I and clinical pharmacology studies.