Literature DB >> 23556138

CNS sites cooperate to detect duplicate subjects with a clinical trial subject registry.

Thomas M Shiovitz1, Charles S Wilcox, Lilit Gevorgyan, Adnan Shawkat.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Duplicate subjects; investigator collaboration; professional patients; professional subjects; site cooperation; subject database; subject registry

Year:  2013        PMID: 23556138      PMCID: PMC3615509     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Innov Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 2158-8333


  10 in total

1.  Repeat participation among normal healthy research volunteers: professional guinea pigs in clinical trials?

Authors:  Carl L Tishler; Suzanne Bartholomae
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.416

2.  Failure rate and "professional subjects" in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Thomas M Shiovitz; Marlene E Zarrow; Andrew M Shiovitz; Alexander M Bystritsky
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.384

3.  Recruiting healthy volunteers for research participation via internet advertising.

Authors:  Katrina A Bramstedt
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2007-06

4.  Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance.

Authors:  Kenneth A Getz; Julia Wenger; Rafael A Campo; Edward S Seguine; Kenneth I Kaitin
Journal:  Am J Ther       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.688

Review 5.  Exploratory analyses of efficacy data from schizophrenia trials in support of new drug applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Ni A Khin; Yeh-Fong Chen; Yang Yang; Peiling Yang; Thomas P Laughren
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 4.384

6.  A national registry for healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Greg Koski
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Are subjects in pharmacological treatment trials of depression representative of patients in routine clinical practice?

Authors:  Mark Zimmerman; Jill I Mattia; Michael A Posternak
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 18.112

8.  Exploratory analyses of efficacy data from major depressive disorder trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration in support of new drug applications.

Authors:  Ni A Khin; Yeh-Fong Chen; Yang Yang; Peiling Yang; Thomas P Laughren
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.384

Review 9.  Placebo-related effects in clinical trials in schizophrenia: what is driving this phenomenon and what can be done to minimize it?

Authors:  Larry Alphs; Fabrizio Benedetti; W Wolfgang Fleischhacker; John M Kane
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 5.176

10.  What is causing the reduced drug-placebo difference in recent schizophrenia clinical trials and what can be done about it?

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

  10 in total
  10 in total

Review 1.  Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants.

Authors:  Chuen Peng Lee; Tyson Holmes; Eric Neri; Clete A Kushida
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 2.  Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

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

3.  Layperson/Plain Language Summaries: Can Sponsors, CROs, and Sites Deliver in 2020?

Authors:  Charles S Wilcox; Leslie Franceschi; Adam Simmons
Journal:  Innov Clin Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-01

Review 4.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

5.  Safety, Science, or Both? Deceptive Healthy Volunteers: Psychiatric Conditions Uncovered by Objective Methods of Screening.

Authors:  Adriana Pavletic; Maryland Pao
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.386

Review 6.  Medication Nonadherence, "Professional Subjects," and Apparent Placebo Responders: Overlapping Challenges for Medications Development.

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

7.  Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

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

8.  Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects.

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

9.  Mitigating the Effects of Nonadherence in Clinical Trials.

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

10.  Strategies to exclude subjects who conceal and fabricate information when enrolling in clinical trials.

Authors:  Eric G Devine; Kristina R Peebles; Valeria Martini
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-12-18
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.