Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design

Abstract

Background The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial’s impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort. Methods The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG−/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov. Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication’s target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials. Results We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36). Conclusions The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

The landscape of biomedical research funding in Brazil: a current overview

“…To overcome potential conflicts of interest, researchers must ensure the independence and integrity of the study design, data collection, and analysis to maintain scientific rigor and objectivity. To address these concerns, regulatory bodies and research institutions have implemented transparency and disclosure requirements and the collaboration between academic researchers and industry partners can also help mitigate potential conflicts of interest and ensure the research is conducted in an ethical manner ( 37 , 39 ).…”

“…Industry funding plays a significant role in advancing biomedical research (36)(37)(38)(39). In this session, we will explore three aspects of industry funding in biomedical research: clinical industry-initiated studies, investigator-initiated studies, and collaborative research.…”

Analysis of research topics and trends in investigator-initiated research/trials (IIRs/IITs): A topic modeling study

“…Additionally, participating centers may bear a greater burden of research costs. [4][5][6] In recent years, there has been a notable shift among researchers from passive participation in industry-sponsored clinical trials to taking on the role of independent initiators of clinical research. This transition has resulted in significant contributions toward optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making and promoting innovation in clinical practices.…”