ABSTRACT
Objectives To assess the environmental impact of an academic clinical trial, by adapting the life-cycle analysis methodology to clinical research.
Design A retrospective, simplified complete life-cycle analysis (LCA), according to the EF 3.0 methodology. LCA is a standardised (ISO14040/44) method for assessing the environmental impacts of a product over its entire life cycle on several environmental issues. It is the balance of inputs and releases associated with the process, from conception to end-of-life.
Setting A prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in neurosurgery. The trial included 202 patients in 18 university hospitals across France.
Participants Not applicable
Intervention Not applicable
Main outcome measures Fourteen impact indicators that could be combined into a single score, for the identification of hotspots of interest.
Results Climate change (or greenhouse gas emissions), was the most important indicator, accounting for almost 30% of the single score. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated at 31.6 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. This was followed by the depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels (24%), resource use - minerals and metals (12%), and particulate matter emissions (8%). The main hotspots identified were patient’ transport and clinical research assistant travel for source data verification.
Conclusions By using complete LCA approach, our study confirms that conducting a clinical trial has a significant environmental impact, particularly on climate change. The main identified hotspots were related to the transport of patients and clinical research assistants
ARTICLE SUMMARY Strengths and limitations of this study
- This study describes the first complete life-cycle analysis of a clinical trial
- Fourteen environmental factors were assessed, appraising all trial activities, from conception to close-out
- This study complements those previously published in the process of establishing eco-design as a new paradigm for clinical research
- Only one clinical trial was assessed, limiting the transposability of the conclusions
- Due to the lack of published impact data for some activities, assumptions had to be made to estimate their environmental impact
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
louise.forteau{at}o2m-groupe.com, maelle.loyer{at}o2m-groupe.com, alain.renault-ext{at}chu-rennes.fr, catherine.mouchel{at}chu-rennes.fr, chloe.rousseau{at}chu-rennes.fr, enora.marion{at}chu-rennes.fr, Sabrina.cochennec{at}chu-rennes.fr, anne.ganivet{at}chu-rennes.fr, marie-laure.gervais{at}chu-rennes.fr, loic.fin{at}chu-rennes.fr, bruno.laviolle{at}chu-rennes.fr
