BACKGROUND: There has been concern about under-representation of older people in clinical trials. The PREDICT study reported that older people and those with co-morbidity continue to be excluded unjustifiably from clinical trials. However, there is no information about differences of opinion on these issues between EU countries. The results of a survey of health-related professionals from nine EU countries that participated in the PREDICT study are presented in this study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify and examine any differences of opinion between EU countries on the inclusion of older patients in clinical trials. METHODS: A questionnaire using a Likert scale and free text was completed by 521 general practitioners, geriatricians, clinical researchers, ethicists, nurses and industry pharmacologists/pharmacists. The questions explored the impact of the present situation, possible reasons for under-representation and potential methods of improving participation. Countries participating were the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK. RESULTS: There was agreement that exclusion from clinical trials on age grounds alone was unjustified (87%) and that under-representation of older people in trials caused difficulties for prescribers (79%) and patients (73%). There were national differences between professionals. All but the Lithuanians believed that older people were disadvantaged because of under-representation. The Czech, Lithuanian and Romanian professionals felt that it was justified to have age limits based on co-morbidity (61-83%) and polypharmacy (63-85%). Romanians also thought that having age limits on trial participation was justified because of reduced life expectancy (62%) and physical disability (58%) in older people. All but the Romanian professionals felt that the present arrangements for clinical trials were satisfactory (62%). All but the Israelis (56%) and Lithuanians (70%) agreed that regulation of clinical trials needed alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Although respondent selection bias cannot be excluded, the differences that emerged between countries may be the result of the political and healthcare-system differences between older and newer members of the EU. These differences may influence decision making about clinical trial regulations and practice in older people.
BACKGROUND: There has been concern about under-representation of older people in clinical trials. The PREDICT study reported that older people and those with co-morbidity continue to be excluded unjustifiably from clinical trials. However, there is no information about differences of opinion on these issues between EU countries. The results of a survey of health-related professionals from nine EU countries that participated in the PREDICT study are presented in this study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify and examine any differences of opinion between EU countries on the inclusion of older patients in clinical trials. METHODS: A questionnaire using a Likert scale and free text was completed by 521 general practitioners, geriatricians, clinical researchers, ethicists, nurses and industry pharmacologists/pharmacists. The questions explored the impact of the present situation, possible reasons for under-representation and potential methods of improving participation. Countries participating were the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK. RESULTS: There was agreement that exclusion from clinical trials on age grounds alone was unjustified (87%) and that under-representation of older people in trials caused difficulties for prescribers (79%) and patients (73%). There were national differences between professionals. All but the Lithuanians believed that older people were disadvantaged because of under-representation. The Czech, Lithuanian and Romanian professionals felt that it was justified to have age limits based on co-morbidity (61-83%) and polypharmacy (63-85%). Romanians also thought that having age limits on trial participation was justified because of reduced life expectancy (62%) and physical disability (58%) in older people. All but the Romanian professionals felt that the present arrangements for clinical trials were satisfactory (62%). All but the Israelis (56%) and Lithuanians (70%) agreed that regulation of clinical trials needed alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Although respondent selection bias cannot be excluded, the differences that emerged between countries may be the result of the political and healthcare-system differences between older and newer members of the EU. These differences may influence decision making about clinical trial regulations and practice in older people.
Authors: Antonio Cherubini; Susanna Del Signore; Joe Ouslander; Todd Semla; Jean-Pierre Michel Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Frederick A Masoudi; Edward P Havranek; Pam Wolfe; Cary P Gross; Saif S Rathore; John F Steiner; Diana L Ordin; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Farhad Pazan; Heinrich Burkhardt; Helmut Frohnhofen; Christel Weiss; Christina Throm; Alexandra Kuhn-Thiel; Martin Wehling Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Carlos Chiatti; Silvia Bustacchini; Gianluca Furneri; Lorenzo Mantovani; Marco Cristiani; Clementina Misuraca; Fabrizia Lattanzio Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.606