Search

Data silos are proliferating while research and development activity explode following genetic and immunological advances for many clinically described disorders with previously unknown etiologies. The latter event has inspired optimism in the patient, clinical, and research communities that disease-specific treatments are on the way. However, we fear the tendency of various stakeholders to balkanize databases in proprietary formats, driven by current economic and academic incentives, will inevitably fragment the expanding knowledge base and undermine current and future research efforts to develop much-needed treatments. The proliferation of proprietary databases, compounded by a paucity of meaningful outcome measures and/or good natural history data, slows our ability to generate scalable solutions to benefit chronically underserved patient populations in ways that would translate to more common diseases. The current research and development landscape sets too many projects up for unnecessary failure, particularly in the rare disease sphere, and does a grave disservice to highly vulnerable patients. This system also encourages the collection of redundant data in uncoordinated parallel studies and registries to ultimately delay or deny potential treatments for ostensibly tractable diseases; it also promotes the waste of precious time, energy, and resources. Groups at the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have started programs to address these issues. However, we and many others feel there should be significantly more discussion of how to coordinate and scale registry efforts. Such discourse aims to reduce needless complexity and duplication of efforts, as well as promote a pre-competitive knowledge ecosystem for rare disease drug development that cultivates and accelerates innovation.

Introduction Participatory patient-centered, web-based methods could streamline and improve the convenience of clinical trial participation. We used an entirely web-based approach to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 4 (REMOTE) trial under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to evaluate tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg for overactive bladder. Methods The trial was designed to replicate previous clinic-based trials of tolterodine ER but was conducted via the web from one clinical site overseen by physicians. Participants were recruited via the web, screened for eligibility using web-based questionnaires, had laboratory testing in their community, and entered a run-in phase requiring bladder e-diaries. Informed consent was obtained using an interactive web-based method with physician countersignature. Study medication was shipped directly to participants. Results With a goal of 283 randomized participants, 5157 registered on the trial website. Of 456 who passed initial screening, identification verification, and signed consent, 237 passed additional medical screening and were countersigned by the investigator. After laboratory testing, 118 entered the placebo run-in; only 18 passed e-diary assessments and were randomized to treatment. At week 12, the mean change from the baseline in micturitions/24 hours (primary endpoint) was − 2.4 for tolterodine ER versus − 0.8 for placebo [treatment difference (95% CI): − 1.6 (− 3.9, 0.6)]. Conclusion The REMOTE trial is the first entirely web-based trial conducted under an IND application. The efficacy observed was consistent with results from conventional trials. With simplification of multi-step screening and testing, web-based trials or their component parts should provide a participant-friendly approach to many clinical trials.

A growing number of participants in clinical trials are sharing information about their health online. It's time that the drug development community starts to examine how this social media use might compromise the integrity of research studies and how it might also offer new opportunities.