Cargando…

Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals. METHODS: Reg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berthon-Jones, Nisha, Courtney-Vega, Kymme, Donaldson, Anna, Haskelberg, Hila, Emery, Sean, Puls, Rebekah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25872747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0653-x
_version_ 1782368622443757568
author Berthon-Jones, Nisha
Courtney-Vega, Kymme
Donaldson, Anna
Haskelberg, Hila
Emery, Sean
Puls, Rebekah
author_facet Berthon-Jones, Nisha
Courtney-Vega, Kymme
Donaldson, Anna
Haskelberg, Hila
Emery, Sean
Puls, Rebekah
author_sort Berthon-Jones, Nisha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals. METHODS: Regional performance was compared using descriptive analysis for time to site opening, recruitment, quality of data and laboratory samples. Follow-up consisted of 10 visits (96 weeks), electronic data collection (EDC) within 7 days of a visit and serious adverse events (SAEs) reported within 24 hours of site awareness. RESULTS: Median days to site opening was 250 (188 to 266), ranging from 177 (158 to 200) (Australia) to 265 (205 to 270) (Europe). Median days to ethics and regulatory approval was 182 (120 to 241) and 218 (182 to 341) days, respectively. Within regions, time to approval ranged from 187 (91 to 205) days (Australia) to 276 (175 to 384) days (Europe). Time to first randomisation ranged from 282 (250 to 313) days (Australia) to 426 (420 to 433) days (North America). Recruitment was lower than forecasted in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America at 89%, 77%, 91% and 43%, respectively. The converse was true in Latin America where despite ethics, regulatory and contractual delays, recruitment was 104% of predicted. Median days to EDC was 7 (3 to 16), ranging from 3 (1 to 16) (Asia) to 13 (8 to 14) days (North America). Median days for initial SAE submission to sponsor was 6 (2 to 20), ranging from 4 (2 to 18) (Latin America) to 24 (5 to 46) days (Australia). Sites took longer to submit final reports, overall median of 28 (7 to 91) days, ranging from 7 days (Australia) to 67 (23 to 103) days (Europe). CONCLUSIONS: Population availability and time to ethics and regulatory approvals influence recruitment; therefore accurate feasibility assessments are critical to site selection. Time to ethics and regulatory approval may not limit site inclusion if compensated by rapid recruitment. Identifying potential delays and methods for reduction can decrease time and costs for sponsors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov identifier: NCT00335322. Date of registration: 8 June 2006
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4412197
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44121972015-04-29 Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial Berthon-Jones, Nisha Courtney-Vega, Kymme Donaldson, Anna Haskelberg, Hila Emery, Sean Puls, Rebekah Trials Research BACKGROUND: Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals. METHODS: Regional performance was compared using descriptive analysis for time to site opening, recruitment, quality of data and laboratory samples. Follow-up consisted of 10 visits (96 weeks), electronic data collection (EDC) within 7 days of a visit and serious adverse events (SAEs) reported within 24 hours of site awareness. RESULTS: Median days to site opening was 250 (188 to 266), ranging from 177 (158 to 200) (Australia) to 265 (205 to 270) (Europe). Median days to ethics and regulatory approval was 182 (120 to 241) and 218 (182 to 341) days, respectively. Within regions, time to approval ranged from 187 (91 to 205) days (Australia) to 276 (175 to 384) days (Europe). Time to first randomisation ranged from 282 (250 to 313) days (Australia) to 426 (420 to 433) days (North America). Recruitment was lower than forecasted in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America at 89%, 77%, 91% and 43%, respectively. The converse was true in Latin America where despite ethics, regulatory and contractual delays, recruitment was 104% of predicted. Median days to EDC was 7 (3 to 16), ranging from 3 (1 to 16) (Asia) to 13 (8 to 14) days (North America). Median days for initial SAE submission to sponsor was 6 (2 to 20), ranging from 4 (2 to 18) (Latin America) to 24 (5 to 46) days (Australia). Sites took longer to submit final reports, overall median of 28 (7 to 91) days, ranging from 7 days (Australia) to 67 (23 to 103) days (Europe). CONCLUSIONS: Population availability and time to ethics and regulatory approvals influence recruitment; therefore accurate feasibility assessments are critical to site selection. Time to ethics and regulatory approval may not limit site inclusion if compensated by rapid recruitment. Identifying potential delays and methods for reduction can decrease time and costs for sponsors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov identifier: NCT00335322. Date of registration: 8 June 2006 BioMed Central 2015-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4412197/ /pubmed/25872747 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0653-x Text en © Berthon-Jones et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Berthon-Jones, Nisha
Courtney-Vega, Kymme
Donaldson, Anna
Haskelberg, Hila
Emery, Sean
Puls, Rebekah
Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title_full Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title_fullStr Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title_short Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial
title_sort assessing site performance in the altair study, a multinational clinical trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25872747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0653-x
work_keys_str_mv AT berthonjonesnisha assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial
AT courtneyvegakymme assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial
AT donaldsonanna assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial
AT haskelberghila assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial
AT emerysean assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial
AT pulsrebekah assessingsiteperformanceinthealtairstudyamultinationalclinicaltrial