Thomas M Shiovitz1, Charles S Wilcox, Lilit Gevorgyan, Adnan Shawkat. 1. Dr. Shiovitz is from CTSdatabase, LLC, in Beverly Hills, California and California Neuroscience Research Medical Group, Inc., Sherman Oaks, California; Dr. Wilcox is from Pharmacology Research Institute, Los Alamitos, California; Ms. Gevorgyan is from California Neuroscience Research Medical Group, Inc., Sherman Oaks, and Mr. Shawkat is from CTSdatabase, LLC, in Beverly Hills, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the first 1,132 subjects in a pilot project where local central nervous system trial sites collaborated in the use of a subject database to identify potential duplicate subjects. METHOD: Central nervous system sites in Los Angeles and Orange County, California, were contacted by the lead author to seek participation in the project. CTSdatabase, a central nervous system-focused trial subject registry, was utilized to track potential subjects at pre-screen. Subjects signed an institutional review board-approved authorization prior to participation, and site staff entered their identifiers by accessing a website. Sites were prompted to communicate with each other or with the database administrator when a match occurred between a newly entered subject and a subject already in the database. RESULTS: Between October 30, 2011, and August 31, 2012, 1,132 subjects were entered at nine central nervous system sites. Subjects continue to be entered, and more sites are anticipated to begin participation by the time of publication. Initially, there were concerns at a few sites over patient acceptance, financial implications, and/or legal and privacy issues, but these were eventually overcome. Patient acceptance was estimated to be above 95 percent. Duplicate Subjects (those that matched several key identifiers with subjects at different sites) made up 7.78 percent of the sample and Certain Duplicates (matching identifiers with a greater than 1 in 10 million likelihood of occurring by chance in the general population) accounted for 3.45 percent of pre-screens entered into the database. Many of these certain duplicates were not consented for studies because of the information provided by the registry. CONCLUSION: The use of a clinical trial subject registry and cooperation between central nervous system trial sites can reduce the number of duplicate and professional subjects entering clinical trials. To be fully effective, a trial subject database could be integrated into protocols across pharmaceutical companies, thereby mandating site participation and increasing the likelihood that duplicate subjects will be removed before they enter (and negatively affect) clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the first 1,132 subjects in a pilot project where local central nervous system trial sites collaborated in the use of a subject database to identify potential duplicate subjects. METHOD: Central nervous system sites in Los Angeles and Orange County, California, were contacted by the lead author to seek participation in the project. CTSdatabase, a central nervous system-focused trial subject registry, was utilized to track potential subjects at pre-screen. Subjects signed an institutional review board-approved authorization prior to participation, and site staff entered their identifiers by accessing a website. Sites were prompted to communicate with each other or with the database administrator when a match occurred between a newly entered subject and a subject already in the database. RESULTS: Between October 30, 2011, and August 31, 2012, 1,132 subjects were entered at nine central nervous system sites. Subjects continue to be entered, and more sites are anticipated to begin participation by the time of publication. Initially, there were concerns at a few sites over patient acceptance, financial implications, and/or legal and privacy issues, but these were eventually overcome. Patient acceptance was estimated to be above 95 percent. Duplicate Subjects (those that matched several key identifiers with subjects at different sites) made up 7.78 percent of the sample and Certain Duplicates (matching identifiers with a greater than 1 in 10 million likelihood of occurring by chance in the general population) accounted for 3.45 percent of pre-screens entered into the database. Many of these certain duplicates were not consented for studies because of the information provided by the registry. CONCLUSION: The use of a clinical trial subject registry and cooperation between central nervous system trial sites can reduce the number of duplicate and professional subjects entering clinical trials. To be fully effective, a trial subject database could be integrated into protocols across pharmaceutical companies, thereby mandating site participation and increasing the likelihood that duplicate subjects will be removed before they enter (and negatively affect) clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Duplicate subjects; investigator collaboration; professional patients; professional subjects; site cooperation; subject database; subject registry
Authors: Larry Alphs; Fabrizio Benedetti; W Wolfgang Fleischhacker; John M Kane Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Aaron S Kemp; Nina R Schooler; Amir H Kalali; Larry Alphs; Ravi Anand; George Awad; Michael Davidson; Sanjay Dubé; Larry Ereshefsky; Georges Gharabawi; Andrew C Leon; Jean-Pierre Lepine; Steven G Potkin; An Vermeulen Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2008-08-22 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Jennifer S Gewandter; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Eric G Devine; David Hewitt; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Amy A Kirkwood; Richard Malamut; John D Markman; Bernard Vrijens; Laurie Burke; James N Campbell; Daniel B Carr; Philip G Conaghan; Penney Cowan; Mittie K Doyle; Robert R Edwards; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Ian Gilron; Dean Juge; Robert D Kerns; Ernest A Kopecky; Michael P McDermott; Gwendolyn Niebler; Kushang V Patel; Richard Rauck; Andrew S C Rice; Michael Rowbotham; Nelson E Sessler; Lee S Simon; Neil Singla; Vladimir Skljarevski; Tina Tockarshewsky; Geertrui F Vanhove; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter Journal: J Pain Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: David J McCann; Nancy M Petry; Anders Bresell; Eva Isacsson; Ellis Wilson; Robert C Alexander Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Nathaniel Katz; Robert H Dworkin; Richard North; Simon Thomson; Sam Eldabe; Salim M Hayek; Brian H Kopell; John Markman; Ali Rezai; Rod S Taylor; Dennis C Turk; Eric Buchser; Howard Fields; Gregory Fiore; McKenzie Ferguson; Jennifer Gewandter; Chris Hilker; Roshini Jain; Angela Leitner; John Loeser; Ewan McNicol; Turo Nurmikko; Jane Shipley; Rahul Singh; Andrea Trescot; Robert van Dongen; Lalit Venkatesan Journal: Pain Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Eric G Devine; Alyssa M Pingitore; Kathryn N Margiotta; Natalia A Hadaway; Kathleen Reid; Kristina Peebles; Jae Won Hyun Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-01-19
Authors: Thomas M Shiovitz; Earle E Bain; David J McCann; Phil Skolnick; Thomas Laughren; Adam Hanina; Daniel Burch Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.126