Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-bmzkg Total loading time: 0.557 Render date: 2022-07-06T04:23:38.939Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Poor implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation is a major threat for pragmatic trials in European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2020

Giovanni Ostuzzi*
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Chiara Gastaldon
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Carlo Petrini
Affiliation:
Bioethics Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian National Institute of Health), Rome, Italy
Brian Godman
Affiliation:
Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK Health Economics Centre, Liverpool University Management School, Liverpool, UK Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
Corrado Barbui
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Giovanni Ostuzzi, E-mail: giovanni.ostuzzi@univr.it
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The principle of pragmatism in clinical trials has been broadly recognised as a way to close the gap between research and practice. In this contribution, we argue that the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials in Europe may be hampered by poor implementation of current European Union's Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014.

Type
Epidemiology for Behavioural Neurosciences
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

In recent years, the value of pragmatism in clinical trials has been strongly emphasised. Pragmatic trials aim to assess interventions under real-life circumstances by (a) recruiting participants similar to those who would receive the intervention in ordinary care; (b) involving unselected health care facilities; (c) comparing novel interventions with current standards of care; and (d) employing clinically relevant outcomes (Ford and Norrie, Reference Ford and Norrie2016). However, as pragmatic designs should resemble clinical practice as much as possible, they might conflict with technical and administrative procedures required by the European Union (EU) for the conduct of experimental studies, including pharmacovigilance procedures. In particular, local implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC, originally ‘[] aimed at harmonizing clinical trial procedures and improving collaboration among EU member states []’, raised a number of administrative and economic issues (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001). Consequently, applications for clinical trials in the EU progressively decreased (European Commission, 2012), until a new regulation, called Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014, was issued (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014). Novel aspects of this regulation include harmonised electronic submission and assessment processes between EU member states; faster and centralised submission and assessment of trials' protocols; improved information sharing and decision making between and within EU member states; economic facilitations (e.g. concept of co-sponsorship); highest safety standards for patients; increased transparency of information on clinical trials (Gokhale and Berry, Reference Gokhale and Berry2018; Tenti et al., Reference Tenti, Simonetti, Bochicchio and Martinelli2018; Scavone et al., Reference Scavone, di Mauro, Pietropaolo, Alfano, Berrino, Rossi, Tomino and Capuano2019). Proper implementation of this new regulation remains a challenging process, which actively involves national and local authorities, who are supposed to remove out-to-date, country-specific requirements for the conduction of clinical trials (Gokhale and Berry, Reference Gokhale and Berry2018). Legislative discrepancies among EU member states is postponing the full implementation of this regulation, although clear data on the situation in each European country are not available (Scavone et al., Reference Scavone, di Mauro, Pietropaolo, Alfano, Berrino, Rossi, Tomino and Capuano2019).

In this contribution we argue that poor implementation of the EU regulation is a major barrier towards the development and conduct of pragmatic trials in Europe. We briefly describe a pragmatic clinical trial on antidepressants currently ongoing in Italy, as this represents a case-example of the practical consequences of a lacking implementation of the last EU regulation.

The VESPA study

The VESPA study (Vortioxetine in the Elderly v. SSRIs: a Pragmatic Assessment) is a randomised, open-label, phase IV, multicentre study, involving 13 centres in Italy. The study, financially supported by the Italian Medicine Agency, is currently ongoing, and its protocol is publicly available (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03779789). According to a pragmatic approach, the study will (a) recruit elderly participants with broad inclusion criteria in real-world settings (including both out- and in-patient settings); (b) randomise participants to vortioxetine or one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (including sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine), allowing clinicians to choose which SSRI better adapts to each individual participant; and (c) allow the same doctors to simultaneously collect socio-demographic and clinical data, randomise, and prescribe the antidepressant within a reasonable timeframe.

Concerns about pragmatism

As a result of poor implementation of the EU Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014 in Italy requirements of the previous regulation are still in place and need to be followed. Consequently, participants involved in clinical trials cannot simply get the prescribed medicines at any local community pharmacy, as they would usually do outside an experimental design and as recommended by the new EU regulation (No. 536/214). On the contrary, in experimental settings in Italy, they must receive medicine boxes re-labelled by the pharmacy of the health care facility where the enrolment takes place. Information reported in this additional label (EudraCT code of the study; patient's unique code; name and phone number of the study promoter) is intended to enhance a transparent, easily verifiable and traceable system for the experimental medicines (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2010). We note that this procedure is associated with at least two feasibility issues that inevitably affect pragmatism.

First, having drugs provided just by the pharmacy of the enrolment site's health care facility consequently reduces the possibility to prescribe medicines to a smaller range, as compared to what is available in the market, as health care facility pharmacies have their own pharmaceutical formularies, which usually include only a selection of medicines available in the community (Bjorkhem-Bergman et al., Reference Bjorkhem-Bergman, Andersen-Karlsson, Laing, Diogene, Melien, Jirlow, Malmstrom, Vogler, Godman and Gustafsson2013). In the case of the VESPA study, vortioxetine, although currently marketed in Italy and available in community pharmacies, is not yet available in most health care facility pharmacies. As a consequence, in order to prescribe vortioxetine to participants, additional study funding is needed to purchase it, although in ordinary practice it would be refunded by the National Health System. Furthermore, as health care facility pharmacies usually have only a selection of the SSRIs available, and this selection might differ according to the recruiting centre, the doctor's choice is relevantly limited and much different from usual care, with also a risk of unbalances between centres having different SSRI selections. These limitations, related to regulatory requirements, deeply alter ordinary practice, and are hardly compatible with the original design of the study.

Second, referring the included patients to the health care facility pharmacies, rather than to the local community pharmacies, carries practical issues. Health care facility pharmacies have limited opening hours, which might be a problem both for younger working patients and for elderly participants, particularly those with limited autonomy and needing continuous care. Also, considering the complex therapeutic regimens of most of these patients, they (and their caregivers) might find difficult to collect different medicines at different pharmacies. In order to overcome this challenge, investigators may directly provide re-labelled medicines to the study participants. Although this would ease participants' routine, it still carries practical and methodological limitations. Doctors involved in the recruitment will need a stock of re-labelled medicine boxes in their visiting rooms, and this requires time-consuming procedures to ensure security and regular re-supply. Also, for doctors recruiting patients admitted to medical wards it might be difficult to carry around a whole stock of medication boxes. Moreover, directly providing medicine boxes to participants is likely to affect treatment adherence as compared to everyday practice, where issuing a prescription does not guarantee acquisition and consumption (Blaschke et al., Reference Blaschke, Osterberg, Vrijens and Urquhart2012).

The above-described scenarios represent significant departures from everyday clinical practice, making the recruitment process demanding for both investigators and participants, and profoundly affecting pragmatism. Of notice, this might discourage doctors from community-based non-academic services to take part in the study. The pragmatic value of routinely involving non-academic professionals in clinical trials has been highlighted (Rahman et al., Reference Rahman, Majumder, Shaban, Rahman, Ahmed, Abdulrahman and D'Souza2011), as they represent the best access point to real-world practice. Figure 1 shows the original level of pragmatism of the VESPA study according to the PRECIS-2 tool (Loudon et al., Reference Loudon, Treweek, Sullivan, Donnan, Thorpe and Zwarenstein2015), and how it is decreased in four different areas (namely flexibility adherence, flexibility delivery, organisation and setting) as a consequence of the current implementation of EU regulations in Italy.

Fig. 1. Changes in PRECIS-2 scores after applying EU regulations on pharmacovigilance (higher scores indicate higher levels of pragmatism).

Future perspectives

The EU Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014 states that ‘Where the investigational or auxiliary medicinal product have already been placed on the market [], as a general rule no additional labelling should be required for clinical trials that do not involve the blinding of the label’. This simple statement should allow phase IV clinical trials to undergo the same level of pharmacovigilance monitoring applied to ordinary practice. However, the example-case described here shows how this regulation still waits to be properly implemented in Italy. Arguably, similar concerns are to be extended to many other EU state members, although clear data are lacking (Scavone et al., Reference Scavone, di Mauro, Pietropaolo, Alfano, Berrino, Rossi, Tomino and Capuano2019). Going further, considering that (a) the level of monitoring in clinical trials is higher compared with clinical practice, and (b) pragmatism enhances the generalisability of study results to real-world populations, one might even argue that highly pragmatic studies represent the best possible source of data for effective pharmacovigilance.

In conclusion, efforts by national (such as the Italian Medicines Agency) and local authorities are urgently required to fully implement the Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014, not only to harmonise trials' procedures, reduce costs, and increase transparency and safety standards, but also to support the conduction of more pragmatic phase IV trials, which represent a seminal step towards data easily generalisable to real-world practice, and, ultimately, better standards of care.

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

GO wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the writing, critically revised the text and approved the final version.

Financial support

None.

Conflict of interest

No funding was used to support the preparation of this article. Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

Bjorkhem-Bergman, L, Andersen-Karlsson, E, Laing, R, Diogene, E, Melien, O, Jirlow, M, Malmstrom, RE, Vogler, S, Godman, B and Gustafsson, LL (2013) Interface management of pharmacotherapy. Joint hospital and primary care drug recommendations. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 69(Suppl 1), 7378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaschke, TF, Osterberg, L, Vrijens, B and Urquhart, J (2012) Adherence to medications: insights arising from studies on the unreliable link between prescribed and actual drug dosing histories. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 52, 275301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission (2012) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0369&from=en.Google Scholar
Ford, I and Norrie, J (2016) Pragmatic trials. The New England journal of medicine 375, 454463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gokhale, S and Berry, C (2018) EU Clinical Trial Regulation: The Long Path to Implementation. Available at https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/eu-clinical-trial-regulation-long-path-implementation/.Google Scholar
Loudon, K, Treweek, S, Sullivan, F, Donnan, P, Thorpe, KE and Zwarenstein, M (2015) The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ (Clinical Research ed) 350, h2147.Google ScholarPubMed
Rahman, S, Majumder, MA, Shaban, SF, Rahman, N, Ahmed, M, Abdulrahman, KB and D'Souza, UJ (2011) Physician participation in clinical research and trials: issues and approaches. Advances in Medical Education and Practice 2, 8593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scavone, C, di Mauro, G, Pietropaolo, M, Alfano, R, Berrino, L, Rossi, F, Tomino, C and Capuano, A (2019) The European clinical trials regulation (No 536/2014): changes and challenges. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 12, 10271032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tenti, E, Simonetti, G, Bochicchio, MT and Martinelli, G (2018) Main changes in European Clinical Trials Regulation (No 536/2014). Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 11, 99101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2001) Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_20/dir_2001_20_en.pdf.Google Scholar
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2010) Directive 2010/84/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, directive 2001/83/EC on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 348, 7499.Google Scholar
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2014) Regulation (Eu) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing directive 2001/20/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 158, 176.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Changes in PRECIS-2 scores after applying EU regulations on pharmacovigilance (higher scores indicate higher levels of pragmatism).

You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Poor implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation is a major threat for pragmatic trials in European countries
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Poor implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation is a major threat for pragmatic trials in European countries
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Poor implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation is a major threat for pragmatic trials in European countries
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *