Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41952778›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026

Considerations raised during the regulatory and ethics review of platform clinical trials in infectious diseases.

Amos J de Jong, Denise van Hout, Janneke D M Verberk, Marjolein P M Hensgens, Alike W van der Velden, Janneke H H M van de Wijgert, Marc J M Bonten, Lennie P G Derde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amos J de JongJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Denise van HoutJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Janneke D M VerberkEuropean Clinical Research Alliance on Infectious Diseases, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marjolein P M HensgensJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Alike W van der VeldenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Janneke H H M van de WijgertJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marc J M BontenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Lennie P G DerdeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Platform trials can address more than one clinical research question simultaneously and allow for the addition or removal of arms over time. The scientific and operational complexity of platform trials may give rise to specific challenges. In this study, we evaluate the considerations raised during the regulatory and ethics review of five infectious disease platform trials. Methods: Considerations raised during the review of five platform trials (ECRAID-Prime, RECOVERY, RECLAIM, REMAP-CAP, and SNAP) between 31 January 2022 and 28 March 2025, and sponsor responses were analyzed using content analysis. A single consideration could include multiple questions or remarks, and these were each treated as individual comments in the analysis. Results: Findings were categorized under four main themes: (i) clinical trial application, (ii) recruitment and informed consent, (iii) participant safety and data protection, and (iv) methodology. We identified 1218 comments, of which 93 (7.6%) specifically related to the platform trial design. Related to the methodology, regulators frequently requested more details about interim analyses, including triggers, correction for multiplicity, and stopping rules. Conclusions: Less than 10% of the comments was directly related to the platform trial design. These were usually resolved by providing additional explanation. No comments were identified in areas where feedback was anticipated by the research team, such as response adaptive randomization or confidentiality of interim results. Effective evaluation of platform trials requires sponsors to highlight platform trial-specific features in clinical trial applications, and for regulatory bodies to be adequately prepared to evaluate them.

Indexed as

Adaptive designsClinical trial authorizationPlatform trialsRegulatory scienceTrial innovation

Identifiers

PMID41952778
PMCPMC13054085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.