TY - JOUR
T1 - The state of clinical research in neurology
AU - Hall, Deborah A.
AU - Ramos, Alberto R.
AU - Gelfand, Jeffrey Marc
AU - Videnovic, Aleksander
AU - Benatar, Michael
AU - Cahill, Carolyn
AU - Kluger, Benzi M.
AU - Goldman, Myla
N1 - Funding Information:
US American Academy of Neurology members and chairs of departments of neurology were surveyed regarding clinical research in 2016. NIH data on the neuroscience pipeline and extramural grant funding were also collected.
Funding Information:
Herein, we report the results of the 2017 Clinical Research Survey, a survey of AAN members who were conducting research to (1) determine the current state of clinical research in neurology in the view of members of the AAN, (2) survey neurology chairs for their perception of the current state of clinical research and for comparison to survey responses in prior years, (3) identify perceived barriers for clinical research in neurology, and (4) explore NIH funding from institutes supporting neuroscience and neurology research for R01 and mentored awards over the same time period.2,3 NIH data were used to show award data regarding the funding climate for clinical research.
Funding Information:
The state of clinical research in neurology has remained stable in many areas over the last 10 years. However, fewer neurology researchers are applying for NIH funding, with the greatest decrease found in the number of early career award applicants, a mechanism to support mentored research. While the reasons for this decrease in applicant rates remain unclear, our survey suggests that limited time, challenges of subject recruitment, and administrative burden are the largest barriers for neurologic clinical researchers. These barriers, and others, must be identified and addressed to avoid an efflux of talent from bringing new cures to neurologic patients.
Funding Information:
D. Hall has received research support from NINDS, Parkinson Foundation, Anti-Aging Foundation, Shapiro Foundation, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Neurocrine. A. Ramos has received research support from the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Institute, NINDS, and NIA. He also serves as consultant to MCMC, LLC, CompPartners, Inc., and Medical Review Institute of America. J. Gelfand reports personal compensation for consulting on a scientific advisory board for Genentech (more than 1 year ago) and MedImmune (more than 2 years ago), and medical legal consulting (expert witness). Dr. Gelfand has received research support to UCSF from Genentech and MedDay for clinical trials and from Quest Diagnostics for development of a dementia care pathway. Dr. Gelfand’s wife has received personal compensation for consulting on a scientific advisory board for Eli Lilly, eNeura, and Zosano, travel expenses to a scientific meeting from Teva, and research support to UCSF from eNeura and Allergan (more than 1 year ago). A. Videnovic has received research support from NINDS. He has served as a site investigator for clinical trials supported by Pfizer and PhotoPharmics. He has received personal compensation for DSMB and consulting services for Acorda Therapeutics, Wilson Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Retrophin. M. Benatar has received research support from NINDS, NCATS, FDA, DOD, CDC, Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association, and Eli Lilly and Company. He has served as a site investigator for clinical trials supported by Alexion, Cytokinetics, and Neuraltus. He has received personal compensation for advisory board services for Denali Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, UCB, and Ra Pharmaceuticals. C. Cahill is an employee of the American Academy of Neurology. B. Kluger has received support from NINDS, NIA, NINR, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Parkinson Foundation, PCORI, the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, and the Davis Phinney Foundation. M. Goldman has received consultant fees from ADAMAS, EMD Serono, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Neuroscience. She has received grant funding from the NIH NINDS, National MS Society, PCORI, Biogen Idec, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. She has received travel support from Biogen, Acorda Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Teva Neuroscience, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures.
Funding Information:
Past reports have highlighted various difficulties for US clinical neurology researchers, such as increasingly burdensome clinical responsibilities and reduced federal funding. This study uses data from the AAN’s 2017 Clinical Research Survey to provide an updated overview of how AAN members view the state of US clinical neurology research. NIH data on extramural grant funding was also collected.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 American Academy of Neurology.
PY - 2018/4/10
Y1 - 2018/4/10
N2 - Objective To study and provide an update on the state of clinical research in neurology in the United States. Methods US American Academy of Neurology members and chairs of departments of neurology were surveyed regarding clinical research in 2016. NIH data on the neuroscience pipeline and extramural grant funding were also collected. Results The response rate was 32% (n = 254) for nonchair researchers and 58% (n = 67) for department chairs. Researcher respondents were on average 50 years old, 66% were men, and 81% were actively conducting clinical research, with phase II/III clinical trials and outcome measure studies being the most common type of research conducted. Time to conduct research, recruitment, and administrative burden were the major barriers reported. According to department chairs, funding and training opportunities in patient-oriented research have increased over the last 10 years. Overall, applicants to neuroscience-specific NIH institutes for extramural funding have decreased over the same time period. Conclusions The state of clinical research in neurology has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, but neurologists still have barriers in conducting clinical research. There has been an interval decrease in neuroscience applicants for NIH funding, which raises concerns about the pipeline and future of clinical research in neurology. These results will serve as a reference for the development of solutions to these issues.
AB - Objective To study and provide an update on the state of clinical research in neurology in the United States. Methods US American Academy of Neurology members and chairs of departments of neurology were surveyed regarding clinical research in 2016. NIH data on the neuroscience pipeline and extramural grant funding were also collected. Results The response rate was 32% (n = 254) for nonchair researchers and 58% (n = 67) for department chairs. Researcher respondents were on average 50 years old, 66% were men, and 81% were actively conducting clinical research, with phase II/III clinical trials and outcome measure studies being the most common type of research conducted. Time to conduct research, recruitment, and administrative burden were the major barriers reported. According to department chairs, funding and training opportunities in patient-oriented research have increased over the last 10 years. Overall, applicants to neuroscience-specific NIH institutes for extramural funding have decreased over the same time period. Conclusions The state of clinical research in neurology has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, but neurologists still have barriers in conducting clinical research. There has been an interval decrease in neuroscience applicants for NIH funding, which raises concerns about the pipeline and future of clinical research in neurology. These results will serve as a reference for the development of solutions to these issues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048278601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048278601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005295
DO - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005295
M3 - Article
C2 - 29549220
AN - SCOPUS:85048278601
VL - 90
SP - e1347-e1354
JO - Neurology
JF - Neurology
SN - 0028-3878
IS - 15
ER -