[Work sampling in ophthalmological clinical studies. A multicenter field study]. / Zeiterfassung in ophthalmologischen klinischen Studien. Eine multizentrische Feldstudie.

BACKGROUND: Work in clinical studies is generally more elaborate and therefore more time-consuming in comparison to the clinical routine. The purpose of this study was to systematically investigate the time consumption in the German ophthalmological clinical trial centers. METHODS: The members of the working group of the German Ophthalmology Society clinical study centers (Arbeitsgemeinschaft DOG Klinische Studienzentren) were asked to fill in three questionnaires about best estimations for the time spent on study-related procedures and administration. Additionally, work sampling was performed for each employee at each study center over a period of 3 weeks. RESULTS: The questionnaires were completed by 9 of the 11 centers. Overall, 5504 working hours were recorded. On an average working day, the time spent for both documentation and administration averaged 4 h each. Operative interventions consumed a significant amount of time (2.8 h), as did ophthalmological examinations (2.5 h) and obtaining informed consent (1.5 h). The recorded time consumption for visual acuity testing, informed consent and documentation was well aligned with the best estimates of the three questionnaires. By contrast, interventions, ophthalmological examinations and biomaterial sample handling were underrated in the best estimations. DISCUSSION: A considerable amount of time in clinical studies is spent on documentation and administration. From work sampling, ophthalmological examinations and biomaterial sampling turned out to be surprisingly time consuming. This is probably due to preparation and postprocessing tasks. It is important to consider this when calculating the overall costs of a clinical study. In addition, many administrative activities cannot be attributed to specific patients and can therefore not be compensated on the basis of case payments alone. Additional remuneration is required to fully cover the costs in an ophthalmological study center.

[Clinical research in ophthalmology: Medical prerequisites]. / Klinische Forschung in der Augenheilkunde : Ärztliche Voraussetzungen.

BACKGROUND: The shortage of principal investigators is increasingly constricting the rising demand for clinical trials in Germany. This is partly because clinical trials training is outside the field of ophthalmology but another issue is that clinical trials research often has to be performed on top of the regular workload. OBJECTIVE: Medical personnel in university ophthalmology departments can be motivated for clinical trials research by means of only a few structural improvements. Long-term commitment could be improved through new career tracks in the field of clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The broad adoption of these proposals could convey sustainable growth of clinical ophthalmological research in German.

Effect of a reduction in uric acid on renal outcomes during losartan treatment: a post hoc analysis of the reduction of endpoints in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Trial.

Emerging data show that increased serum uric acid (SUA) concentration is an independent risk factor for end-stage renal disease. Treatment with the antihypertensive drug losartan lowers SUA. Whether reductions in SUA during losartan therapy are associated with renoprotection is unclear. We therefore tested this hypothesis. In a post hoc analysis of 1342 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy participating in the Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Trial, we determined the relationship between month 6 change in SUA and renal endpoints, defined as a doubling of serum creatinine or end-stage renal disease. Baseline SUA was 6.7 mg/dL in placebo and losartan-treated subjects. During the first 6 months, losartan lowered SUA by -0.16 mg/dL (95% CI: -0.30 to -0.01; P=0.031) as compared with placebo. The risk of renal events was decreased by 6% (95% CI: 10% to 3%) per 0.5-mg/dL decrement in SUA during the first 6 months. This effect was independent of other risk markers, including estimate glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria. Adjustment of the overall treatment effects for SUA attenuated losartan's renoprotective effect from 22% (95% CI: 6% to 35%) to 17% (95% CI: 1% to 31%), suggesting that approximately one fifth of losartan's renoprotective effect could be attributed to its effect on SUA. Losartan lowers SUA levels compared with placebo treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy. The degree of reduction in SUA is subsequently associated with the degree in long-term renal risk reduction and explains part of losartan's renoprotective effect. These findings support the view that SUA may be a modifiable risk factor for renal disease.