ABSTRACT
Introduction: The conect4children (c4c) project aims to facilitate efficient planning and delivery of paediatric clinical trials. One objective of c4c is data standardization and reuse. Interoperability and reusability of paediatric clinical trial data is challenging due to a lack of standardization. The Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards that are required or recommended for regulatory submissions in several countries lack paediatric specificity with limited awareness within academic institutions. To address this, c4c and CDISC collaborated to develop the Pediatrics User Guide (PUG) consisting of cross-cutting data items that are routinely collected in paediatric clinical trials, factoring in all paediatric age ranges. Methods and Results: The development of the PUG consisted of six stages. During the scoping phase, subtopics (each containing several clinically relevant concepts) were suggested and debated for inclusion in the PUG. Ninety concepts were selected for the modelling phase. Concept maps describing the Research Topic and representation procedure were developed for the 19 concepts that had no (or partial) previous modelling in CDISC. Next, metadata and implementation examples were developed for concepts. This was followed by a CDISC internal review and a public review. For both these review stages, the feedback comments were either implemented or rejected based on budget, timelines, expert review, and scope. The PUG was published on the CDISC website on February 23, 2023. Discussion: The PUG is a first step in bridging the lack of child specific CDISC standards, particularly within academia. Several academic and industrial partners were involved in the development of the PUG, and c4c has undertaken multiple steps to publicize the PUG within its academic partner organizations - in particular, the European Reference Networks (ERNs) that are developing registries and dictionaries in 24 disease areas. In the long term, continued use of the PUG in paediatric clinical trials will enable the pooling of data from multiple trials, which is particularly important for medical domains with small populations.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The high failure rate of industry-driven pediatric clinical trials leads to insufficient timely labeling of drugs in children and a lack of scientific evidence, resulting in the persistently high off-label drug use. National clinical trial networks can facilitate collaboration between sites, investigators, and experts, increasing the likelihood of successful trials. Within the conect4children (c4c) network, an Innovative Medicines Initiative 2-funded project, National Hubs hosted by National Clinical Trials Networks were set up across 21 European countries to facilitate the setup and execution of pediatric clinical trials. In this paper, we aim to present the performance metrics of the trial feasibility process as well as learnings and challenges encountered by the Belgian and Dutch Networks in working within the European c4c project. Method: The c4c National Hubs streamline pediatric clinical trials by initiating early country outreach, identifying overlapping studies, recommending quality trial sites, and supporting trial budgeting for both industry and academic settings. To show the impact of Pedmed-NL and Belgian Pediatric Clinical Research Network (BPCRN), internal metrics were collected from 2019 to 2022 on four industry-sponsored and three academic trials performed within the c4c network. Timelines and outcomes of the site identification were collected and analyzed for industry trials. A qualitative analysis was conducted through c4c platforms, sponsor interactions, and stakeholder engagement to evaluate the added value of a research network. Results: In industry-sponsored trials, full feasibility questionnaires were completed within 2 weeks (n = 48), and inclusion rates were up to 80% of clinical sites. Before committing to c4c, 14% of sites were contacted by industry, leading to communication burdens. Utilizing national infrastructure knowledge and therapeutic environment insights helped optimize trial timelines and address feasibility challenges. In addition, national adaptations, such as bilingual staff and site development, played a role in streamlining trial operations in both academic and industry settings. Performance and experiences were similar for both networks. Conclusion: The early-facilitation examples from the c4c trials demonstrated promising metrics for two National Hubs, including optimized start-up timelines and aiding site selection quality. The learnings and challenges of the Belgian and Dutch Networks provided insights for the development of clinical research networks.