Protecting intellectual property associated with Canadian academic clinical trials - approaches and impact

Trials

Stephen Wood³  Mark Walker⁴  Laura Magee²  Sue Ross¹ 

[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, 10240 Kingway Avenue, Edmonton, T5H 3V9, Canada;Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, V6H 3N1, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, Canada;Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, K1Y 4E9, Canada

关键词: Trial protocol;    Intellectual property;    Clinical trials as topic;   

Others  :  1095036
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-243

 received in 2012-04-17, accepted in 2012-12-07,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Intellectual property is associated with the creative work needed to design clinical trials. Two approaches have developed to protect the intellectual property associated with multicentre trial protocols prior to site initiation. The ‘open access’ approach involves publishing the protocol, permitting easy access to the complete protocol. The main advantages of the open access approach are that the protocol is freely available to all stakeholders, permitting them to discuss the protocol widely with colleagues, assess the quality and rigour of the protocol, determine the feasibility of conducting the trial at their centre, and after trial completion, to evaluate the reported findings based on a full understanding of the protocol. The main potential disadvantage of this approach is the potential for plagiarism; however if that occurred, it should be easy to identify because of the open access to the original trial protocol, as well as ensure that appropriate sanctions are used to deal with plagiarism. The ‘restricted access’ approach involves the use of non-disclosure agreements, legal documents that must be signed between the trial lead centre and collaborative sites. Potential sites must guarantee they will not disclose any details of the study before they are permitted to access the protocol. The main advantages of the restricted access approach are for the lead institution and nominated principal investigator, who protect their intellectual property associated with the trial. The main disadvantages are that ownership of the protocol and intellectual property is assigned to the lead institution; defining who ‘needs to know’ about the study protocol is difficult; and the use of non-disclosure agreements involves review by lawyers and institutional representatives at each site before access is permitted to the protocol, significantly delaying study implementation and adding substantial indirect costs to research institutes. This extra step may discourage sites from joining a trial. It is possible that the restricted access approach may contribute to the failure of well-designed trials without any significant benefit in protecting intellectual property. Funding agencies should formalize rules around open versus restricted access to the study protocol just as they have around open access to results.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Ross et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Canadian Institutes of Health Research Evaluation Unit: Evaluation of the open operating grant program - final report 2012. 2012. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45846.html webcite
• [2]Rhoten D, Powell W: The frontiers of intellectual property: expanded protection versus new models of open science. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 2007, 3:345-373.
• [3]Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M: Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Rev Econom Policy 2007, 23:640-660.
• [4]Geuna A, Muscio A: The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 2009, 47:93-114.
• [5]Canadian Intellectual Property Office: What is intellectual property?. 2012. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00011.html webcite
• [6]ISRCTN register. 2012. http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/ webcite
• [7]The CHIPS trial (control of hypertension in pregnancy study). 2012. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01192412 webcite
• [8]CHIPS protocol. 2012. http://sunnybrook.ca/uploads/sri_cmicr_chips_PROTOCOL_20111116.pdf webcite
• [9]Magee L: 09PRT/3980: the CHIPS trial (control of hypertension in pregnancy study) (ISRCTN 71416914, MCT-87522). 2012. http://www.thelancet.com/protocol-reviews/09PRT-3980 webcite
• [10]High dose folic acid supplementation throughout pregnancy for preeclampsia prevention (FACT). 2012. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355159 webcite
• [11]Sanctions for misconduct. 2012. http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/sanctions-misconduct webcite
• [12]Tri-agency framework: responsible conduct of research. 2012. http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/ webcite
• [13]Ezzat H, Ross S, Magee L, von Dadelszen P, Morris T, Liston R: Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project – the investigator’s perspective. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:223.
• [14]Crowther CA, McKinlay CJ, Middleton P, Harding JE: Repeat doses of prenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth for improving neonatal health outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 15:CD003935.
• [15]World Health Organization: World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform. New standards for registration of human medical research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr25/en/ webcite
• [16]Moja LP, Moschetti I, Nurbhai M, Compagnoni A, Liberati A, Grimshaw JM, Chan AW, Dickersin K, Krleza-Jeric K, Moher D, Sim I, Volmink J: Compliance of clinical trial registries with the world health organization minimum data set: a survey. Trials 2009, 10:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]DeAngelis C, Drazen J, Frizelle F, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke J, Schroeder T, Sox H, van der Weyden M, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. JAMA 2004, 292:1363-1364.
• [18]Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM: Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009, 6:e1000144.
• [19]Reveiz L, Chan AW, Krleza-Jerić K, Granados CE, Pinart M, Etxeandia I, Rada D, Martinez M, Bonfill X, Cardona AF: Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. PLoS One 2010, 5:e12484.
• [20]Ewart R, Lausen H, Millian N: Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study. Ann Fam Med 2009, 7:542-546.
• [21]Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P: Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009, 302:977-984.
• [22]Chan AW, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG: Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004, 171:735-740.
• [23]Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I: Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14:3. 9-11–1–193
• [24]Smyth RM, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR: Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ 2011, 342:c7153.
• [25]Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004, 291:2457-2465.
• [26]Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 2008, 337:a2299.
• [27]Hróbjartsson A, Pildal J, Chan AW, Haahr MT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC: Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:967-973.
• [28]Trials. 2012. http://www.trialsjournal.com/ webcite
• [29]Biomed Central. 2012. http://www.biomedcentral.com/ webcite
• [30]Blümle A, Meerpohl JJ, Rücker G, Antes G, Schumacher M, von Elm E: Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles. BMJ 2011, 342:d1828.
• [31]Ross S, Grant A, Gillespie W, Counsel C, Russell I, Prescott R: Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epi. 1999, 52:1143-1156.
• [32]McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, Elbourne DR, Francis D, Garcia J, Roberts I, Snowdon C: What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006, 7:9.
• [33]CIHR policy on access to research outputs. 2012. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html webcite
• [34]Medical Research Council: MRC position statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research. 2012. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/Openaccesspublishing/Positionstatement/index.htm webcite
• [35]National Institutes of Health: NIH public access policy details. 2012. http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm webcite