Associate Principal Investigators and the HEAL-COVID trial: good for trainees, good for trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Newman J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10821510 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of principal investigators' (PIs) predictions about three events for their own clinical trials: positivity on trial primary outcomes, successful recruitment and timely trial completion.Study design and settingA short, electronic survey was used to elicit subjective probabilities within seven months of trial registration. When trial results became available, prediction skill was calculated using Brier scores (BS) and compared against uninformative prediction (i.e. predicting 50% all of the time).Results740 PIs returned surveys (16.7% response rate). Predictions on all three events tended to exceed observed event frequency. Averaged PI skill did not surpass uninformative predictions (e.g., BS = 0.25) for primary outcomes (BS = 0.25, 95% CI 0.20, 0.30) and were significantly worse for recruitment and timeline predictions (BS 0.38, 95% CI 0.33, 0.42; BS = 0.52, 95% CI 0.50, 0.55, respectively). PIs showed poor calibration for primary outcome, recruitment, and timelines (calibration index = 0.064, 0.150 and 0.406, respectively), modest discrimination in primary outcome predictions (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.65, 0.85) but minimal discrimination in the other two outcomes (AUC = 0.64, 95% CI 0.57, 0.70; and 0.55, 95% CI 0.47, 0.62, respectively).ConclusionPIs showed overconfidence in favorable outcomes and exhibited limited skill in predicting scientific or operational outcomes for their own trials. They nevertheless showed modest ability to discriminate between positive and non-positive trial outcomes. Low survey response rates may limit generalizability.
| S-EPMC8824379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the past, clinical trials run in India have been the subject of criticism. Among other steps to improve the trial ecosystem, for some time the government limited the number of trials that a Principal Investigator (PI) could run to three at a time. We were interested to know how many trials PIs in India tend to run at a time.MethodsWe accessed the 52,149 trial records hosted by the Clinical Trials Registry-India in April 2023. Of these, we shortlisted trials that had run in India, were interventional, and involved certain interventions such as drug, biological etc. We used multiple parameters, such as email ID, phone number etc. to determine whether one name always represented the same PI and whether two names corresponded to the same PI. We then determined how many trials each PI had run.ResultsWe found that 3,916 unique PI names were associated with 6,665 trials. Of these, 2,963 (75.7%) PIs had run a single study. Only 251 (6.4%) had run more than three trials. A mere 14 PIs had run 20 or more trials. The 14 PIs were affiliated with local pharma companies (6), local or global contract research organizations (4), multinational pharma companies (3) and the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (1). The maximum number of trials run by a single PI was 108. Of these, the largest number run in a single year, 2022, was 53.ConclusionEach PI name needs to be connected to a unique ID that does not change with time, so that it is easier to track the number of trials that a given PI has run. The number of studies run by a given PI at a given time must not be excessive and needs to be monitored more actively. The government needs to consider whether a cap on the number of trials that a PI runs at a time is required and what infrastructure needs to be in place to facilitate higher numbers of trials. Trial registry records need to be updated more regularly. Other countries may wish to do likewise.
| S-EPMC11335508 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8244581 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10809132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.
| S-EPMC5241252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Concerns have been raised over the high turnover rate for clinical investigators. Using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bioresearch Monitoring Information System database, we conducted an online survey to identify factors that affect principal investigators' (PIs) decisions to conduct only a single FDA-regulated drug trial. Of the 201 PIs who responded, 54.2% were classified as "one-and-done." Among these investigators, 28.9% decided for personal reasons to not conduct another trial, and 44.4% were interested in conducting another trial, but no opportunities were available. Three categories of broad barriers were identified as generally burdensome or challenging by the majority of investigators: 1) workload balance (balancing trial implementation with other work obligations and opportunities) (63.8%); 2) time requirements (time to initiate and implement trial; investigator and staff time) (63.4%); and 3) data and safety reporting (56.5%). Additionally, 46.0% of investigators reported being generally unsatisfied with finance-related issues. These same top three barriers also affected investigators' decisions to no longer conduct FDA-regulated trials. Our findings illuminate three key aspects of investigator turnover. First, they confirm that investigator turnover occurs, as more than half of respondents were truly "one-and-done." Second, because a large proportion of respondents wanted to conduct more FDA-regulated trials but lacked opportunities to do so, mechanisms that match interested investigators with research sponsors are needed. Third, by focusing on the barriers we identified that affected investigators' decisions to no longer conduct FDA-regulated trials, future efforts to reduce investigator turnover can target issues that matter the most to investigators.
| S-EPMC5936741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001001751
| EGAC00001001751 | EGA
Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.
| S-EPMC10509726 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7595267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001000953
| EGAC00001000953 | EGA