Fordyce Christopher B, Roe Matthew T, Pierre Christine, Hinkley Terri, Hamre Gerrit, Tenaerts Pamela, McCall Jonathan, Topping James D
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 May 21;15:100380. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100380. eCollection 2019 Sep.
High turnover rates among clinical trial investigators contribute to inefficiency, instability, and increased costs for the clinical research enterprise; however, factors contributing to investigator turnover have not been well characterized.
Using information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bioresearch Monitoring Information System (BMIS), we examined trends in the overall clinical investigator workforce and within specific "phenotypes" as well as differences by investigator location (U.S.-based vs. non-U.S.-based). We identified unique investigators within the database, stratifying them into one of three "phenotypes": those with one Form FDA1572 submission across the study interval ("one-and-done"); those with two or more submissions but with substantial intervals between trials ("stop-and-go"); and those with two or more submissions and continuous involvement in multiple trials ("stayers").
Of the 172,453 unique investigators who submitted a Form FDA 1572 during the study interval (1999-2015), 85,455 were classified as "one-and-done" investigators; 21,768 as "stop-and-go" investigators; and 65,231 as "stayer" investigators. The total number of investigators declined across the study interval. Among all subgroups, only "one-and-done" investigators showed growth across the study period, largely driven by increases in non-U.S.-based investigators. "Stop-and-go" investigators showed declines for both U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based investigators, as did "stayers," who showed the largest absolute and proportional declines of all subgroups.
From 1999 to 2015, investigators submitting a Form FDA 1572 to the BMIS database declined by approximately one-third and the proportion of investigators involved in only one trial increased, signaling potential adverse trends in the clinical investigator workforce. Strategies for sustaining investigator engagement warrant further exploration.
临床试验研究者的高流动率导致临床研究企业效率低下、稳定性差且成本增加;然而,导致研究者流动的因素尚未得到充分描述。
利用美国食品药品监督管理局生物研究监测信息系统(BMIS)的信息,我们研究了临床研究者总体队伍以及特定“类型”的趋势,以及研究者所在地点(美国境内与境外)的差异。我们在数据库中识别出独特的研究者,并将他们分为三种“类型”之一:在整个研究期间提交一份FDA 1572表格的研究者(“一劳永逸型”);提交两份或更多表格但试验之间间隔较长的研究者(“停停走走型”);以及提交两份或更多表格并持续参与多项试验的研究者(“坚持型”)。
在研究期间(1999 - 2015年)提交FDA 1572表格的172,453名独特研究者中,85,455名被归类为“一劳永逸型”研究者;21,768名被归类为“停停走走型”研究者;65,231名被归类为“坚持型”研究者。在整个研究期间,研究者总数有所下降。在所有亚组中,只有“一劳永逸型”研究者在研究期间有所增加,这主要是由境外研究者数量的增加推动的。“停停走走型”研究者在美国境内和境外的数量都有所下降,“坚持型”研究者也是如此,他们在所有亚组中的绝对降幅和比例降幅最大。
从1999年到2015年,向BMIS数据库提交FDA 1572表格的研究者人数下降了约三分之一,且仅参与一项试验的研究者比例增加,这表明临床研究者队伍存在潜在的不利趋势。维持研究者参与度的策略值得进一步探索。