Since 2018, the FDA has required that U.S. clinical trial results be reported to clinicaltrials.gov within a year of trial completion, but this mandate is often ignored. A recent study found that less than half of U.S. trials submitted results to the site by the deadline. Industry-led trials were the most likely to be reported on time.

We report the diagnostic challenges and the clinical course of a patient with an extraordinary presentation of B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with eosinophilia. We identified a novel ZBTB20-JAK2 gene fusion as a chimeric RNA transcript using the Archer platform. This gene fusion from the same patient was recently identified by Peterson et al. (2019) at the genomic level using a different sequencing technology platform. The configuration of this gene fusion predicts the production of a kinase-activating JAK2 fusion protein, which would normally lead to a diagnosis of Philadelphia chromosome–like B-ALL (Ph-like B-ALL). However, the unusual presentation of eosinophilia led us to demonstrate the presence of this gene fusion in nonlymphoid hematopoietic cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies with morphologic correlation. Therefore, we believe this disease, in fact, represents blast crisis arising from an underlying myeloid neoplasm with JAK2 rearrangements. This case illustrates the difficulty in differentiating Ph-like B-ALL and myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm with eosinophilia and gene rearrangements (MLN-EGR) in blast crisis. As currently defined, the diagnosis of MLN-EGR relies on the hematologic presentations and the identification of marker gene fusions (including PCM1-JAK2, ETV6-JAK2, and BCR-JAK2). However, these same gene fusions, when limited to B-lymphoblasts, also define Ph-like B-ALL. Yet, our case does not conform to either condition. Therefore, the assessment for lineage restriction of gene rearrangements to reflect the pathophysiologic difference between B-ALL and MLN-EGR in blast crisis is likely a more robust diagnostic approach and allows the inclusion of MLN-EGR with novel gene fusions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

It is currently not completely clear how well radiologists perform in evaluating large-vessel occlusion on CTA in acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate potential factors associated with diagnostic error.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Five hundred twenty consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (49.4% men; mean age, 72 years) who underwent CTA to evaluate large-vessel occlusion of the proximal anterior circulation were included. CTA scans were retrospectively reviewed by a consensus panel of 2 neuroradiologists. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between several variables and missed large-vessel occlusion at the initial CTA interpretation.

RESULTS:

The prevalence of large-vessel occlusion was 16% (84/520 patients); 20% (17/84) of large-vessel occlusions were missed at the initial CTA evaluation. In multivariate analysis, non-neuroradiologists were more likely to miss large-vessel occlusion compared with neuroradiologists (OR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.06–29.85; P = .04), and occlusions of the M2 segment were more likely to be missed compared with occlusions of the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment (OR = 5.69; 95% CI, 1.44–22.57; P = .01). There were no calcified emboli in initially correctly identified large-vessel occlusions. However, calcified emboli were present in 4 of 17 (24%) initially missed or misinterpreted large-vessel occlusions.

CONCLUSIONS:

Several factors may have an association with missing a large-vessel occlusion on CTA, including the CTA interpreter (non-neuroradiologists versus neuroradiologists), large-vessel occlusion location (M2 segment versus the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment), and large-vessel occlusion caused by calcified emboli. Awareness of these factors may improve the accuracy in interpreting CTA and eventually improve stroke outcome.

Leading medical experts have described trials for a drug which could treat coronavirus as "a really promising first step" towards overcoming the disease.

Australian scientists also working to evaluate extent of immunity to virus among public

The first study to report use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug anakinra to treat COVID-19 patients found that high-dose anakinra was safe and was associated with respiratory improvements and reduced signs of cytokine storm [1] in 72% (21/29) of patients, according to results from patients studied for 21 days (enrolled from 17 to 27 March 2020) in a Milan hospital, published in The Lancet Rheumatology journal.

In a clinical trial, the drug remdesivir shortened recovery time for patients with advanced cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has appointed Dr Wajid Hussain as its new clinical director for digital health.

Dr Hussain, a cardiologist and cardiac electrophysicist at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, has a demonstrated interest in IT and health.

While he currently represents the views of clinicians on the Trust’s IT committee, Dr Hussain completed a Diploma in Digital Health Leadership at the NHS Digital Academy last year. He is also currently studying for a Master’s in Digital Health leadership at Imperial College London.

read more

The solutions enable continuous remote monitoring of body temperature and other vitals, either at home or in care centers, for clinical trials.

The data management solution is designed to help sponsors and CROs manage data more effectively, increasing cost efficiency and effectiveness.

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO) applauds Research!America for a recently released survey on the public’s perception of clinical trials....

Washington, DC – October 24, 2017 – On October 19 ACRO Executive Director Doug Peddicord, Ph.D., testified at a public hearing of...

The Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO) highlights contributions to health and economy (Leeds, UK) – Facing unprecedented challenges associated with Brexit,...

The Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO) convenes discussion series that seeks to advance an industry with important health and economic impacts...

Following meetings with then-Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and senior leadership from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research on the role of CROs and technology companies in designing and implementing risk-based monitoring (RBM) of clinical trials, ACRO this week submitted extensive comments on recent FDA Guidance.Increasing the use of innovative RBM technologies helps make clinical trials safer, more efficient and higher quality. ACRO’s comments offer unique insights into the recent expansion of RBM implementation and call for further increasing the use of these oversight technologies.

On July 17, 2019, under cooperative agreement with the FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy (Duke Margolis) held a public workshop. The event, titled Improving the Implementation of Risk-Based Monitoring Approaches of Clinical Investigations, aimed to identify opportunities to improve Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) implementation and solicit stakeholder input on the challenges, barriers, and enablers that impact the successful adoption of RBM.

On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, ACRO hosted a Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill. With the help of the Congressional Research & Development...

Investigation of combination therapies including Bayer’s chloroquine and interferon beta-1b to foster much needed solutions for patients in fight against coronavirus pandemic / Bayer Canada to make CAD 1.5 million (approximately 1 million euros) financial commitment and to supply products in support of the research / Plans to include more than 60 contributing research locations involving 6.000 patients

Gilead’s remdesivir, which has been hailed as one of the few truly promising treatments for COVID-19 at this early stage of the ongoing pandemic, has failed in its first randomised clinical trial, leaked data has revealed.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) wrote a letter to Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey urging the wider use of hydroxychloroquine, based on data they have collected.

A new collaboration between Shanghai’s Junshi Biosciences and Eli Lilly will seek to develop novel…

The fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging for many life sciences companies due to a…

W. Scott Harkonen, M.D., the former chief executive office (CEO) of InterMune Inc., was sentenced Wednesday before U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel for wire fraud relating to the dissemination of false and misleading statements about the results of a clinical trial of InterMune’s drug Actimmune.

A former clinical director for Biscayne Milieu, a Miami-based mental-health clinic, was sentenced today to 100 months in prison for his participation in a Medicare fraud scheme involving the submission of more than $50 million in fraudulent billings to Medicare.

SelfRefind, a chain of addiction treatment clinics, PremierTox LLC, a clinical laboratory that performs urine testing and Drs. Bryan Wood and Robin Peavler, the owners of SelfRefind and PremierTox, have agreed to pay $15.75 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims to Medicare and Kentucky’s Medicaid program for tests that were medically unnecessary, more expensive than those performed or billed in violation of the Stark Law.

By Ashley Henderson, PhD, CATO SMS Scientist 1.0 INTRODUCTION The COVID‑19 pandemic has added an unprecedented set of challenges to the conduct of clinical trials including quarantines, travel limitations, site closures, and interruptions in the supply chain of investigational products. In acknowledgement of these challenges, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes that protocol modifications …

Continue reading »

As of December 2019, approximately 41 new antibiotics with the potential to treat serious bacterial infections were in clinical development, and four were approved since the previous update in June 2019. The success rate for clinical drug development is low; historical data show that, generally, only 1 in 5 infectious disease products that enter human testing (phase 1 clinical trials) will be...

Probi's largest clinical trial ever, focused on probiotic immune health, has recently been completed.

Protocol trumps practice. This principle seems clear enough, but complying with it is not always as straight-forward as it sounds. Years of practicing medicine has reinforced the way a physician responds to medical situations. But do these responses run counter to the investigational plan? Can a site’s commitment to standard of care affect its ability to meet enrollment targets?


There’s a lot to consider.



What’s Your Standard of Care?
When deciding whether or not to conduct a particular study, a PI needs to verify that the protocol is aligned with practice norms. For example, an early phase trial might exclude a medication that is part of a practice’s routine therapy. Is the study placebo-controlled? Does it feature a specific comparator drug? Will it include a washout period? Any of these elements could present enrollment challenges or preclude a site from accepting a study at all. Responsible sites want to make thoughtful decisions about study suitability; they want to provide realistic enrollment estimates. Sponsors want this too, and can help sites do both these things by providing them a sufficient level of detail about protocol procedures as early as possible.


The Road to Deviations is Often Paved with Good Intentions
Therapeutic misconception – a well-documented phenomenon in clinical research – occurs when a study participant “fails to appreciate the distinction between the imperatives of clinical research and of ordinary treatment.”* Study participants are not alone in this. Researchers blur the distinction themselves when they conduct procedures that are consistent with clinical care but deviate from the protocol. This may be particularly true for PIs who recruit participants from their own practices. An endocrinologist might ordinarily reduce dosage for a particularly diminutive patient. A pulmonologist would often skip a scheduled chest x-ray she felt wasn’t needed to avoid exposing her patient to unnecessary radiation. An orthopedic surgeon may decide his patient needs more recovery time than usual before attempting her first walk. In a clinical care setting, these decisions are sound, made in an individual patient’s best interest. In a clinical trial, if they differ from the investigational plan and haven’t been approved by the Sponsor, they’re protocol deviations.**

It May be Par for the Course, But It's Still an AE
Specialists who have experience treating particular conditions are also familiar with the complications that ordinarily accompany them. A nephrologist, for instance, knows that a patient with end-stage renal disease frequently experiences bloat from a buildup of fluid between dialysis sessions. Though useful for a doctor treating patients, this knowledge can actually work against a doctor running a trial. How? A PI may fail to report a stomach ache as an AE because it’s so typical, so expected. “Bloat is common for renal patients. If I recorded every GI incident, I’d be recording AEs all day.” At its surface, this PI’s argument sounds reasonable, but what if the study drug itself is contributing to the participant’s discomfort? In order to assess the drug’s gastrointestinal effect, the PI must document the frequency and severity of all GI events.

Lab values that are either above or below normal range are also prime candidates for AE underreporting. “Of course the participant’s liver enzyme is high – we’re testing a cholesterol drug.”

The Importance of Study Oversight
Any GCP course worth its registration fee will discuss the distinction between standard of care and the study protocol. In practice, the distinction is not always as obvious as training sessions might suggest. This is where well-trained CRAs come in. As site monitors, CRAs are in a position to catch deviations that result from lapses into standard of care. Reading through progress notes, a monitor can ensure that any untoward medical event has been reported as an Adverse Event. They can verify that procedures conducted by the PI and site staff are compliant with the protocol. Then, by reviewing which types of data must be collected and emphasizing the importance of following certain protocol procedures, monitors can take the opportunity to re-educate study personnel and help them avoid these common pitfalls.

_______________________________________________________________________
* Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 40: V55-V63.

**Andrew Snyder of the HealthEast Care System wrote a thoughtful piece describing the compatibilities that do exist between clinical care and clinical research. His arguments provide a useful counterpoint to the issues we’re raising here. https://firstclinical.com/journal/2017/1707_Research_vs_Care.pdf

A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

Over the years, attendees of MAGI Clinical Research Conferences have collected a set of practical, actionable suggestions for improving clinical trials. More than eighty such tips appear in the July 2019 edition of Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices*.  In this post, Polaris auditors weigh in on some of their favorite MAGI suggestions. Surprising no one, they also were eager to share some of their own.

Our Favorites Tips from MAGI

So how does a clinical trial tip earn a spot on our exalted Faves List?  First, it must be something we don’t see too often, or not as much as we’d like.(If most organizations already do a useful thing, it doesn’t really qualify as a helpful tip; it’s really just a common practice.) Second, the effort to implement the tip can’t be too onerous. If a practice requires too much interdepartmental coordination, change management, training, money, or resources, it’s not a tip. It’s a full-blown initiative.

So here they are. Each tip from MAGI attendees is in bold font. Our accompanying commentary is in plain text:

• To help ensure quality study conduct, clinical sites should prepare protocol-specific quality checklists for each study. We’ve written about quality checklists from the auditing perspective before. They’re not a panacea, certainly, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be very useful.
  
  
• After study close-out, sponsors and CROs should consider holding conference calls with groups of sites to capture lessons learned. This in turn could be used to improve training, SOPs, SIVs, etc.
  
  
• As a recruitment aid, clinical sites should create pocket-sized, laminated study cards that list the inclusion/exclusion criteria for a study.  Site staff members can keep these cards in their lab coat pockets and quickly refer to them when treating a patient who could be a potential subject.
  
  
• CROs should share risk assessments and mitigation plans with Sponsors. We agree, but would also encourage CROs to keep the sites involved and aware of risks so they can anticipate them and proceed accordingly.
  
  
• Sponsors/CROs should ensure proper qualifications of vendors prior to executing contracts. It’s hard to argue with this logic, but we don’t see it as much as we should. Too often qualification audits come after the paperwork has been signed. Should the audit uncover noncompliance or quality risks at the vendor site, it’s much harder to get the vendor to make necessary changes after the contract is in place.
  
  
• CROs should align 3rd party contracts with the Sponsor/CRO contract and the Clinical Trial Agreement. Yep.

Additional Tips from Polaris QA/Compliance Auditors

The MAGI list of clinical trial tips brought others to mind that we wanted to share. We applied the same criteria to these suggestions as we did to the MAGI contributions: (1) not necessarily rare, but not as common as it could be, and (2) not overly complex or expensive to implement.

• When evaluating outsourcing partners and clinical sites, Sponsors and CROs should make sure to look at personnel turnover rates. Frequent turnovers may suggest underlying problems that could jeopardize study conduct and quality.
  
  
• Sponsors and CROs should make sure their Monitoring Report templates are consistent with the Clinical Monitoring Plan (CMP). For example:
  
  
• The CMP calls for a focus on a particular set of critical variables, but the report template only has a place for recording that 100% SDV was completed. This means that there’s no way to document that the monitor put special emphasis on anything.
• The CMP requires bi-direction review of study data – a confirmation that what is in the CRF can be verified in the source, and all pertinent data in the source can be found in the CRF – but the report template only allows for the former to be documented.
  
  
• Every member of the site team has valuable input. It’s important to include the study PI, CRC, pharmacist, and other key personnel in the discussions. In 2017, we wrote an article about the important, yet often overlooked, input that the pharmacist on site can provide.
  
  
• There are many reasons that trial participants leave a study, many of which can’t be remedied with improved site practices. But sites that demonstrate they value the participation of their study volunteers, and honor the time they’re spending and contribution they’re making, tend to have better retention results. To that end:
  
  
• To help participants schedule their time, sites can prepare calendars that include all study visit dates and indicate the activities and procedures they entail. (This, of course, needs to be approved by the IRB).
• When participants arrive, they shouldn’t have to sit in a waiting room or empty exam room; they should be seen immediately so they don’t feel their time is being wasted.
• Sites can provide beverages and light snacks to their study participants who especially appreciate them immediately after a fasting blood draw (protocol permitting, naturally). It’s a small courtesy, and not difficult to do. Whose day isn’t brightened by a proffered nosh?**

Uh oh. Now we got you all thinking about mini muffins and cheddar popcorn. Go ahead. Grab a treat. We'll talk later.

________________________________________________________________
 * Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, July 2019

** Proffered Nosh™ would be a really great name for a restaurant. Or a fictional Scotland Yard Inspector -- legendary for his wit, brilliance, wine pairings, and fashion sense.

Objective responses seen in 29% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC)

Much attention has been paid to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain for medicines we rely on, but there has been less focus on the impact of medicines yet to come. The advancements in cancer care … Continue reading →