There is growing recognition that the United States' clinical trials enterprise (CTE) faces great challenges. There is a gap between what is desired - where medical care is provided solely based on high quality evidence - and the reality - where there is limited capacity to generate timely and practical evidence for drug development and to support medical treatment decisions. With the need for transforming the CTE in the U.S. becoming more pressing, the IOM Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation held a two-day workshop in November 2011, bringing together leaders in research and health care. The workshop focused on how to transform the CTE and discussed a vision to make the enterprise more efficient, effective, and fully integrated into the health care system. Key issue areas addressed at the workshop included: the development of a robust clinical trials workforce, the alignment of cultural and financial incentives for clinical trials, and the creation of a sustainable infrastructure to support a transformed CTE. This document summarizes the workshop.
An ideal health care system relies on efficiently generating timely, accurate evidence to deliver on its promise of diminishing the divide between clinical practice and research. There are growing indications, however, that the current health care system and the clinical research that guides medical decisions in the United States falls far short of this vision. The process of generating medical evidence through clinical trials in the United States is expensive and lengthy, includes a number of regulatory hurdles, and is based on a limited infrastructure. The link between clinical research and medical progress is also frequently misunderstood or unsupported by both patients and providers. The focus of clinical research changes as diseases emerge and new treatments create cures for old conditions. As diseases evolve, the ultimate goal remains to speed new and improved medical treatments to patients throughout the world. To keep pace with rapidly changing health care demands, clinical research resources need to be organized and on hand to address the numerous health care questions that continually emerge. Improving the overall capacity of the clinical research enterprise will depend on ensuring that there is an adequate infrastructure in place to support the investigators who conduct research, the patients with real diseases who volunteer to participate in experimental research, and the institutions that organize and carry out the trials. To address these issues and better understand the current state of clinical research in the United States, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation held a 2-day workshop entitled Transforming Clinical Research in the United States. The workshop, summarized in this volume, laid the foundation for a broader initiative of the Forum addressing different aspects of clinical research. Future Forum plans include further examining regulatory, administrative, and structural barriers to the effective conduct of clinical research; developing a vision for a stable, continuously funded clinical research infrastructure in the United States; and considering strategies and collaborative activities to facilitate more robust public engagement in the clinical research enterprise.
Successful drug development relies on accurate and efficient clinical trials to deliver the best and most effective pharmaceuticals and clinical care to patients. However, the current model for clinical trials is outdated, inefficient and costly. Clinical trials are limited by small sample sizes that do not reflect variations among patients in the real world, financial burdens on participants, and slow processes, and these factors contribute to the disconnect between clinical research and clinical practice. On November 28-29, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop to investigate the current clinical trials system and explore the potential benefits and challenges of implementing virtual clinical trials as an enhanced alternative for the future. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.
Pharmaceutical companies, academic researchers, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health all possess large quantities of clinical research data. If these data were shared more widely within and across sectors, the resulting research advances derived from data pooling and analysis could improve public health, enhance patient safety, and spur drug development. Data sharing can also increase public trust in clinical trials and conclusions derived from them by lending transparency to the clinical research process. Much of this information, however, is never shared. Retention of clinical research data by investigators and within organizations may represent lost opportunities in biomedical research. Despite the potential benefits that could be accrued from pooling and analysis of shared data, barriers to data sharing faced by researchers in industry include concerns about data mining, erroneous secondary analyses of data, and unwarranted litigation, as well as a desire to protect confidential commercial information. Academic partners face significant cultural barriers to sharing data and participating in longer term collaborative efforts that stem from a desire to protect intellectual autonomy and a career advancement system built on priority of publication and citation requirements. Some barriers, like the need to protect patient privacy, pre- sent challenges for both sectors. Looking ahead, there are also a number of technical challenges to be faced in analyzing potentially large and heterogeneous datasets. This public workshop focused on strategies to facilitate sharing of clinical research data in order to advance scientific knowledge and public health. While the workshop focused on sharing of data from preplanned interventional studies of human subjects, models and projects involving sharing of other clinical data types were considered to the extent that they provided lessons learned and best practices. The workshop objectives were to examine the benefits of sharing of clinical research data from all sectors and among these sectors, including, for example: benefits to the research and development enterprise and benefits to the analysis of safety and efficacy. Sharing Clinical Research Data: Workshop Summary identifies barriers and challenges to sharing clinical research data, explores strategies to address these barriers and challenges, including identifying priority actions and "low-hanging fruit" opportunities, and discusses strategies for using these potentially large datasets to facilitate scientific and public health advances.
There is growing recognition that the United States' clinical trials enterprise (CTE) faces great challenges. There is a gap between what is desired - where medical care is provided solely based on high quality evidence - and the reality - where there is limited capacity to generate timely and practical evidence for drug development and to support medical treatment decisions. With the need for transforming the CTE in the U.S. becoming more pressing, the IOM Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation held a two-day workshop in November 2011, bringing together leaders in research and health care. The workshop focused on how to transform the CTE and discussed a vision to make the enterprise more efficient, effective, and fully integrated into the health care system. Key issue areas addressed at the workshop included: the development of a robust clinical trials workforce, the alignment of cultural and financial incentives for clinical trials, and the creation of a sustainable infrastructure to support a transformed CTE. This document summarizes the workshop.
Integrates the various disciplines of the science of health disparities in one comprehensive volume The Science of Health Disparities Research is an indispensable source of up-to-date information on clinical and translational health disparities science. Building upon the advances in health disparities research over the past decade, this authoritative volume informs policies and practices addressing the diseases, disorders, and gaps in health outcomes that are more prevalent in minority populations and socially disadvantaged communities. Contributions by recognized scholars and leaders in the field—featuring contemporary research, conceptual models, and a broad range of scientific perspectives—provide an interdisciplinary approach to reducing inequalities in population health, encouraging community engagement in the research process, and promoting social justice. In-depth chapters help readers better understand the specifics of minority health and health disparities while demonstrating the importance of advancing theory, refining measurement, improving investigative methods, and diversifying scientific research. In 26 chapters, the book examines topics including the etiology of health disparities research, the determinants of population health, research ethics, and research in African American, Asians, Latino, American Indian, and other vulnerable populations. Providing a unified framework on the principles and applications of the science of health disparities research, this important volume: Defines the field of health disparities science and suggests new directions in scholarship and research Explains basic definitions, principles, and concepts for identifying, understanding and addressing health disparities Provides guidance on both conducting health disparities research and translating the results Examines how social, historical and contemporary injustices may influence the health of racial and ethnic minorities Illustrates the increasing national and global importance of addressing health disparities Discusses population health training, capacity-building, and the transdisciplinary tools needed to advance health equity A significant contribution to the field, The Science of Health Disparities Research is an essential resource for students and basic and clinical researchers in genetics, population genetics, and public health, health care policymakers, and epidemiologists, medical students, and clinicians, particularly those working with minority, vulnerable, or underserved populations.
In 2006 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, recognizing the need for a new impetus to encourage clinical and translational research. At the time it was very difficult to translate basic and clinical research into clinical and community practice; making it difficult for individual patients and communities to receive its benefits. Since its creation the CTSA Program has expanded, with 61 sites spread across the nation's academic health centers and other institutions, hoping to provide catalysts and test beds for policies and practices that can benefit clinical and translation research organizations throughout the country. The NIH contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2012 to conduct a study to assess and provide recommendations on appropriateness of the CTSA Program's mission and strategic goals and whether changes were needed. The study was also address the implementation of the program by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) while exploring the CTSA's contributions in the acceleration of the development of new therapeutics. A 13-member committee was established to head this task; the committee had collective expertise in community outreach and engagement, public health and health policy, bioethics, education and training, pharmaceutical research and development, program evaluation, clinical and biomedical research, and child health research. The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research is the result of investigations into previous program evaluations and assessments, open-session meetings and conference class, and the review of scientific literature. Overall, the committee believes that the CTSA Program is significant to the advancement of clinical and translational research through its contributions. The Program would benefit from a variety of revisions, however, to make it more efficient and effective.
When is it appropriate to return individual research results to participants? The immense interest in this question has been fostered by the growing movement toward greater transparency and participant engagement in the research enterprise. Yet, the risks of returning individual research resultsâ€"such as results with unknown validityâ€"and the associated burdens on the research enterprise are competing considerations. Returning Individual Research Results to Participants reviews the current evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of returning individual research results, while also considering the ethical, social, operational, and regulatory aspects of the practice. This report includes 12 recommendations directed to various stakeholdersâ€"investigators, sponsors, research institutions, institutional review boards (IRBs), regulators, and participantsâ€"and are designed to help (1) support decision making regarding the return of results on a study-by-study basis, (2) promote high-quality individual research results, (3) foster participant understanding of individual research results, and (4) revise and harmonize current regulations.
The evolution of health care is expanding the possibilities for integration of clinical research into the continuum of clinical care; new approaches are enabling the collection of data in real-world settings; and new modalities, such as digital health technologies and artificial intelligence applications, are being leveraged to overcome challenges and advance clinical research. At the same time, the clinical research enterprise is strained by rising costs, varying global regulatory and economic landscapes, increasing complexity of clinical trials, barriers to recruitment and retention of research participants, and a clinical research workforce that is under tremendous demands. Looking ahead to 2030, the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a public workshop for stakeholders from across the drug research and development life cycle to reflect on the lessons learned over the past 10 years and consider opportunities for the future. The workshop was designed to consider goals and priority action items that could advance the vision of a 2030 clinical trials enterprise that is more efficient, effective, person-centered, inclusive, and integrated into the health care delivery system so that outcomes and experiences for all stakeholders are improved. This Proceedings of a Workshop summarizes the presentations and discussions that took place during the four-part virtual public workshop held on January 26, February 9, March 24, and May 11, 2021.
The U.S. medical countermeasures (MCMs) enterprise is interconnected, complex, and dynamic. It includes public and private entities that develop and manufacture new and existing MCMs, ensure procurement, storage, and distribution of MCMs, and administer, monitor, and evaluate MCMs. The interagency group known as the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) is the nation's sole coordinating body, responsible for ensuring end-to-end MCM preparedness and response. Ensuring an Effective Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise provides recommendations from an expert committee for a re-envisioned PHEMCE. Four priority areas of improvement emerged from committee deliberations: (1) articulating PHEMCE's mission and role and explicating the principles guiding PHEMCE's operating principles and processes, (2) revising PHEMCE operations and processes, (3) collaborating more effectively with external public and private partners, and (4) navigating legal and policy issues.
