Funding Sources of Therapeutic and Vaccine Clinical Trials for COVID-19 vs Non-COVID-19 Indications, 2020-2021.

Importance: Effective COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics reached the market within the first year of the pandemic. This rate of development and availability was an unprecedented achievement that required attention to numerous research and development, regulatory, and policy challenges. However, only limited evidence is currently available on the sources of funding for COVID-19 clinical trials. Objective: To compare the number and funding sources of clinical trials aimed at investigating therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19 vs those for all non-COVID-19 indications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, clinical trials in phase 1 to 3 that were registered to start between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021, were examined. All relevant data were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of clinical trials and their funding sources. Results: A total of 1977 clinical trials that addressed COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines were registered worldwide with starting dates from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021. This cohort represented 13.9% of all trials (N = 14 274) during the same period. Most of the COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine clinical trials were funded by public sources (1144 [57.9%]), followed by industry (540 [27.3%]) and public-private partnerships (293 [14.8%]). Most of these studies focused on the development of anti-COVID-19 therapeutics (1680 [85.0%]) rather than vaccines (297 [15.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that publicly funded research and medical institutions played a leading role as funding sources for generating effective COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines during the first 1.5 years of the pandemic and were most likely instrumental in their rapid development. It may be beneficial for the public sector to maintain the affordability and global access to these therapeutics and vaccines to ensure that they remain available for use worldwide.

Moving forward in clinical research with master protocols.

With billions of dollars in research and development (R&D) funding continuing to be invested, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become into a singular focus for the scientific community. However, the collective response from the scientific communities have seen poor return on investment, particularly for therapeutic research for COVID-19, revealing the existing weaknesses and inefficiencies of the clinical trial enterprise. In this article, we argue for the importance of structural changes to existing research programs for clinical trials in light of the lessons learned from COVID-19.

The triple aim of clinical research.

The proposed triple aim of health care-enhanced patient experience, improved population health, and reduced per capita costs-can be applied to clinical research. A triple aim for clinical research would (1) improve the individual research participant's experience; (2) promote the health of populations; and (3) reduce per capita costs of clinical research. Such an approach is possible by designing trials around the needs of participants rather than sites, embracing digital measures of health, and advancing decentralized studies. Recent studies, including those evaluating therapies for COVID-19, have demonstrated the value of such an approach. Accelerating the adoption of these methods can help fulfill this new triple aim of clinical research.

Risk-based centralized data monitoring of clinical trials at the time of COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 pandemic caused several alarming challenges for clinical trials. On-site source data verification (SDV) in the multicenter clinical trial became difficult due to travel ban and social distancing. For multicenter clinical trials, centralized data monitoring is an efficient and cost-effective method of data monitoring. Centralized data monitoring reduces the risk of COVID-19 infections and provides additional capabilities compared to on-site monitoring. The key steps for on-site monitoring include identifying key risk factors and thresholds for the risk factors, developing a monitoring plan, following up the risk factors, and providing a management plan to mitigate the risk. METHODS: For analysis purposes, we simulated data similar to our clinical trial data. We classified the data monitoring process into two groups, such as the Supervised analysis process, to follow each patient remotely by creating a dashboard and an Unsupervised analysis process to identify data discrepancy, data error, or data fraud. We conducted several risk-based statistical analysis techniques to avoid on-site source data verification to reduce time and cost, followed up with each patient remotely to maintain social distancing, and created a centralized data monitoring dashboard to ensure patient safety and maintain the data quality. CONCLUSION: Data monitoring in clinical trials is a mandatory process. A risk-based centralized data review process is cost-effective and helpful to ignore on-site data monitoring at the time of the pandemic. We summarized how different statistical methods could be implemented and explained in SAS to identify various data error or fabrication issues in multicenter clinical trials.

Cancer Research: The Lessons to Learn from COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruption of cancer clinical trials due to the restrictions on nonessential services and the reallocation of resources, and at the same time the urgent global effort toward discovering therapies that treat or prevent COVID-19 infection has led to shortening of traditional regulatory timelines. This experience should stimulate similar urgency in the way future cancer research is conducted.

Clinical research in hospital pharmacy during the fight against COVID-19.

The health crisis resulting from the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 worlwide, added to the low evidence of currently used treatments has led to the development of a large number of clinical trials (CT) and observational studies. Likewise,  important measures have been adopted in healthcare and research centers  aimed at halting the pandemic as soon as possible. The objective of this study is  to gather the main aspects of the clinical research studies undertaken by the  Departments of Hospital Pharmacy (DHP) of Spain during the COVID-19 crisis. The decision of the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) to sponsor CTs made it possible that 13% of DHP had been led at least one CT.  The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS), in coordination  with Institutional Review Boards, has adopted a fast-track review procedure to  accelerate authorizations for CTs related to the treatment or prevention of  COVID-19. There have also been numerous public and private calls for financing  research projects aimed at contributing to the fight against this virus. Despite  the pandemic, actions have been taken to continue ongoing CTs and studies  while the safety and well-being of patients are guaranteed. More specifically, the AEMPS and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have issued guidelines that  incorporate changes to CT protocols that will have to be applied until the  pandemic is over. In this health emergency, the scientific community has found  itself in a race against time to generate evidence. It is at this moment that  hospital pharmacists emerge as key players in clinical research and are  contributing to a rational, effective and safe healthcare decision-making.

La presente crisis sanitaria derivada de la rápida expansión del virus SARS-CoV- 2 a nivel mundial, así como la falta de evidencia de los tratamientos empleados  actualmente, ha provocado la aparición de un gran número de ensayos clínicos y estudios observacionales. Del mismo modo, ha ocasionado la puesta en marcha  de importantes medidas en el entorno sanitario e investigador con el fin de  conseguir detener la evolución de la pandemia lo antes posible. El objetivo del  actual trabajo es recopilar aspectos fundamentales relacionados con la  investigación clínica desarrollada por los servicios de farmacia hospitalaria  durante la crisis provocada por la COVID-19. La iniciativa de la Sociedad  Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria de actuar como promotor de ensayos clínicos  ha posibilitado que el 13% de estos servicios de farmacia hospitalaria haya  podido liderar uno. En este sentido, la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y  Productos Sanitarios, junto con los Comités de Ética de Investigación, ha  acelerado los procedimientos de autorización de nuevos ensayos clínicos  destinados a tratar o prevenir la COVID-19. Asimismo, han sido numerosas las  convocatorias públicas y privadas destinadas a la financiación de proyectos de  diversa índole con el fin de contribuir a la lucha contra este virus. A pesar de la  irrupción de la pandemia, también han surgido acciones destinadas a mantener  las actividades de los ensayos clínicos y estudios puestos previamente en  marcha, garantizando la seguridad y bienestar del paciente. Concretamente, la  Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios y la Agencia Europea  de Medicamentos han publicado guías que incluyen cambios en los protocolos de los ensayos clínicos que deben mantenerse mientras dure la pandemia. La  emergencia sanitaria actual ha obligado a la comunidad científica a la generación de evidencia a contrarreloj. Por ello, en este momento en el que se requiere del  mayor rigor posible, el farmacéutico de hospital debe alzarse como una figura  clave en la investigación en salud, contribuyendo a que las decisiones sanitarias  sean racionales, eficientes y seguras.

Paying Participants in COVID-19 Trials.

Trials are in development and underway to examine potential interventions for treatment and prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). How should we think about offering payment to participants in these trials? Payment for research participation is ethically contentious even under ideal circumstances. Here, we review 3 functions of research payment-reimbursement, compensation, and incentive-and identify heightened and novel ethical concerns in the context of a global pandemic. We argue that COVID-19 trial participants should usually be offered reimbursement for research-related expenses, and compensation for their time and effort, as for other types of research under usual circumstances. Given increased risk of undue influence against pandemic background conditions, incentive payment should be avoided unless essential to recruitment and retention in important trials whose social value outweighs this risk. Where essential, however, incentives can be ethically permissible, so long as reasonable efforts are made to minimize the possibility of undue influence.