A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept = 78; ad hoc = 64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval = 0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.67). LIMITATIONS The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application.

[Pilot Project: Improved Lung Deposition via a New Nasal Inhalation Procedure].

INTRODUCTION Inhaled drugs can only be effective if they reach the middle and small airways. This study introduces a system that combines a trans-nasal application of aerosols with noninvasive pressure support ventilation. METHODS In a pilot study, 7 COPD patients with GOLD stages II and III inhaled a radiolabeled marker dissolved in water via a trans-nasal route. The mean aerosol particle size was 5.5 µm. Each patient took part in two inhalation sessions that included two application methods and were at least 70 hours apart. During the first session ("passive method"), the patient inhaled the aerosol through an open tube system. The second session ("active method") included pressure support ventilation during the inhalation process. A gamma camera and planar scintigraphy was used to determine the distribution of aerosol particles in the patient's body and lung. RESULTS The pressure supported inhalation ("active method") results in an increased aerosol lung deposition compared to the passive method. Above all, we could demonstrate deposition in the lung periphery with relatively large aerosol particles (5.5 µm). DISCUSSION The results prove that the combination of trans-nasal inhalation with noninvasive pressure support ventilation leads to significantly increased particle deposition in the lung.