Evidence and evidence gaps - an introduction.

Background: Medical treatment requires the implementation of existing evidence in the decision making process in order to be able to find the best possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic measure for the individual patient based on the physician's own expertise. Clinical trials form the evidence base and ideally, their results are assembled, analyzed, summarized, and made available in systematic review articles. Beside planning, conducting, and evaluating clinical trials in conformity with GCP (good clinical practice), it is essential that all results of conducted studies are publicly available in order to avoid publication bias. This includes also the public registration of planned and cancelled trials. History: During the last 25 years, evidence-based medicine became increasingly important in medical care and research. It is closely associated with the names of Archibald Cochrane and David Sackett. About 15 years ago, the Deutsche Cochrane Zentrum (Cochrane Germany) and the Deutsche Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e.V. (German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, DNEbM) were founded in Germany. In the International Cochrane Collaboration, clinicians and methodologists come together on an interdisciplinary level to further develop methods of evidence-based medicine and to discuss the topics of evidence generation and processing as well as knowledge transfer. Problem: Evidence is particularly important for physicians in the process of decision making, however, at the same time it is the base of a scientific proof of benefit for the patient and finally for the payers in health care. The closure of evidence gaps requires enormously high staff and financial resources, significant organizational efforts, and it is only successful when clinical and methodical expertise as well as specific knowledge in the field of clinical research are included. On the other hand, the knowledge has to be transferred into practice. For this purpose, practice guidelines, meetings, databases, information portals with processed evidence as well as specific journals and finally teaching are appropriate vehicles. One problem is the multitude of information so that knowledge gaps may affect the clinical routine despite actually existing evidence. Generally, it still takes several years until new knowledge is implemented in daily routine. Tasks: The German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e.V., DGHNOKHC) and the Professional Association of Otolaryngologists (Deutscher Berufsverband der HNO-Ärzte e.V., BVHNO) have fundamental interest in supporting their members in generating, processing, and providing evidence as well as accompanying knowledge transfer. It encompasses the fields of diagnostics, therapy, and prognosis in the same way as prevention and applies to medicinal products as well as to medical devices or surgical procedures. The base for this is the regular assessment of evidence gaps, also in the area of established procedures, that has to be followed by a prioritization of research questions and the subsequent initiation of clinical research. In addition, large trials verifying therapies and diagnostics, for example in the context of daily conditions after approval, can only be conducted combining all resources in the ENT community. Method, results, and outlook: Together, the executive committees of the DGHNOKHC and the BVHNO founded the German Study Center of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (Deutsches Studienzentrum für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie, DSZ-HNO). First projects have been initiated, among those a clinical trial on the therapy of sudden hearing loss supported by the BMBF and a survey on evidence gaps in oto-rhino-laryngology. It seems to be both reasonable and feasible to make available methodological expertise via such an infrastructure of a study center for physicians in hospitals and private practices in order to support clinical research and to implement the principles of evidence-based medicine in daily routine.

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.

Compassionate use of interventions: results of a European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) survey of ten European countries.

BACKGROUND: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. METHODS: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). RESULTS: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

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.

The German Clinical Trials Register: challenges and chances of implementing a bilingual registry.

OBJECTIVE: It is a moral responsibility towards patients, funding organizations, the scientific community and the general public to publish not only the results of clinical trials but also to inform prospectively about planned trials. This is especially important for scientists, funding organizations, and ethics committees, since they are involved in the planning of new trials, which should rely on the knowledge of existing trials. Moreover, patients can only participate in clinical trials if they or their physicians are aware of ongoing trials for which they are eligible. In order to provide a central portal for information on clinical research in Germany and to facilitate the search for specific trials, the German Clinical Trials Register was implemented in 2008. METHOD: An internet-based prototype of the German Clinical Trials Register was developed in close co-operation with the World Health Organization's registries network on the basis of the internationally harmonized data specification. This was further adapted to a bilingual registry's needs. Co-operation with medical ethics committees in Germany has been initiated with the aim of a joint synergistic data acquisition procedure. RESULTS: The German Clinical Trials Register was launched in August 2008. It was approved as the World Health Organization's primary registry for Germany in October 2008, and fulfils the requirements of the International Committee of Journal Editors. CONCLUSION: The German Clinical Trials Register provides a central bilingual portal for all users (including scientists, patients, physicians, funding organizations, and ethics committees) for information on planned, ongoing, and completed clinical trials conducted in Germany. The German Clinical Trials Register allows International Committee of Journal Editors and World Health Organization-compliant registration of clinical trials in Germany.