Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21109581›Full record

ReviewClinical trials (London, England)2010

Bridging the gap: improving clinical development and the regulatory pathways for health products for neglected diseases.

Thomas J Bollyky, Iain M Cockburn, Ernst Berndt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas J BollykyCenter for Global Development (CGD), Washington, DC, USA. tbollyky@cgdev.org
Iain M Cockburn
Ernst Berndt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been tremendous progress over the last decade in the development of health products--drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics--for neglected diseases. There are now dozens of candidate products in the pipeline. PURPOSE: Our purpose is to assess challenges that will arise in later-stage clinical development of these candidate health products and propose a strategy that would help bring the costs, risks, and finances for their clinical trials into a better, more sustainable balance.

methodsWe conducted a literature review of clinical trial-related publications, interviewed individuals sponsoring and conducting interventional clinical trials for neglected diseases, and analyzed data from Clinicaltrials.gov, a clinical trials registry, on neglected disease clinical trials initiating subject recruitment between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. We quantified Clinicaltrials.gov data into country-specific participation in clinical trials and aggregated them into geographic regions. We employed bioinformatics and keyword methods to classify trials by type of intervention, sponsor, study phase, and therapeutic area.

resultsTwo substantial bottlenecks threaten our capacity to bring these candidate neglected disease therapies to those in need. First, the research and regulatory capacity in many neglected disease-endemic settings is not adequate to support the clinical trials that need to occur there in order to complete the development of these products. Second, even with expected attrition in the pipeline, current levels of financing are insufficient to support the clinical development of these products under current cost assumptions. LIMITATIONS: The proportion of trials of relevant studies not registered on Clinicaltrials.gov is not known, but is thought to be smaller post-2005, after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors initiated a policy requiring investigators to deposit information about trial design into an accepted clinical trials registry before beginning patient enrollment.

conclusionsRealizing the promise of the neglected disease product pipeline will require not only increased funding for large-scale clinical trials and capacity building, but also greater attention to how these trials and their regulatory pathways can be improved to reduce unnecessary costs, delays, and risks to trial subjects. We propose a two-prong strategy: (1) adaptation and adoption of emerging research on 'sensible guidelines' for reducing large-scale, randomized clinical trial costs to the demands of the neglected disease product pipeline and (2) regional approaches to regulation and ethical review of clinical trials for health products for neglected diseases.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputational BiologyDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug DesignHumansQuality of Health CareRare DiseasesRegistriesUnited StatesVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.