Search

Background: Clinical trials remain key to the development of evidence‐based medical practice. However, they are becoming increasingly complex, mainly in a multinational setting. To address these challenges, the European Union (EU) adopted the Clinical Trial Regulation EU No. 536/2014 (CTR). Once in force, the CTR will lead to more consistent rules and simplification of procedures for conducting clinical trials throughout the EU. Existing harmonization initiatives and "research infrastructures" for clinical trials may facilitate this process. This publication offers a snapshot of the current level of harmonization activities in academic clinical research in Europe. Methods: A survey was performed among the member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardized questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the harmonization of academic clinical research processes at national level, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries, and to identify new fields of action. Results: Most scientific partners already have in place various working groups and harmonization activities at national level. Furthermore, they are involved in and open to sharing their know‐how and documents. Since harmonization was mainly a bottom‐up approach up until now, the extent and topics dealt with are diverse and there is only little cross‐networking and cross‐country exchange so far. Conclusions: Currently, the ECRIN member countries offer a very solid base and collaborative spirit for further aligning processes and exchanging best practices for clinical research in Europe. They can support a smooth implementation of the EU CTR and may act as single contact with consolidated expertise in a country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preliminary evidence suggests that palliative care may be useful for people with severe multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for people with severe MS and their carers. Methods/design: This is a single-blind randomized controlled trial with a nested qualitative study. Seventy-five severe MS-carer dyads are being randomized (at three centers, one in each area of Italy) to HPA or usual care (UC) in a 2:1 ratio. Each center has a specially trained team consisting of four professionals (physician, nurse, psychologist, social worker). The team makes a comprehensive assessment of the needs of the dyads. HPA content is then agreed on, discussed with the patient's caring physician, and delivered over six months. The intervention is not intended to replace existing services. At later visits, the team checks the HPA delivery and reviews/modifies it as necessary. HPA and UC dyads are assessed at home by a blind examiner at baseline, and three and six months later; they also receive monthly telephone interviews. Dyads assigned to UC receive the examiner's visits and telephone interviews, but not the team visits. Primary outcome measures are changes in symptoms (Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS, POS-S-MS), and quality of life (the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), not assessed in patients with severe cognitive compromise) at three and six months. Other outcomes are changes in patient functional status and mood; changes in carer quality of life, mood and caregiving burden; costs; incorporation with standard care; unplanned hospital admissions; referrals to hospice; and deaths. The experience of participants will be evaluated qualitatively by individual semi-structured interviews (HPA patients and carers) and focus group meetings (HPA patients' caring physicians). Discussion: The results of our study will show whether the HPA is feasible and beneficial to people with severe MS and their carers living in the three Italian geographic areas. The nested qualitative study will add to the understanding of the strengths and limitations of the intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]