ABSTRACT
Research ethics committees (RECs) and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator’s brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that preclinical evidence presented in IBs is reported in a way that does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, REC members, industry representatives, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs.
This study was preregistered (https://osf.io/nvzwy/). We used purposive sampling and invited stakeholders to participate in an online semistructured interview between March and June 2021. The themes were derived using inductive content analysis. We used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) matrix to categorize our findings.
Twenty-seven international stakeholders participated. The interviewees pointed to several strengths and opportunities to improve completeness and robustness, mainly more transparent and systematic justifications of the inclusion of studies. However, weaknesses and threats were mentioned that could undermine efforts to enable more thorough assessment: The interviewees stressed that current review practices are sufficient to ensure the safe conduct of first-in-human trials. They feared that changes to the IB structure or review process could overburden stakeholders and slow drug development.
In principle, having more robust decision-making processes in place aligns with the interests of all stakeholders and with many current initiatives to increase the translatability of preclinical research and limit uninformative or ill-justified trials early in the development process. Further research should investigate measures that could be implemented to benefit all stakeholders.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study is financed by BIH QUEST departmental resources.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Charite University Medical Center ethics committee reviewed and approved our study protocol under application number EA4/026/21.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Raw data (interview transcripts) cannot be shared as participants were ensured that only members of the study team had access to transcripts as a condition of participation. A breakdown of the interviewees′ roles and sample quotations are available as supplementary materials.
