Alberto M. Borobia, Juliette Guillot, Amanda Bok, Lea Proulx, Sandra Pla, Paloma Moraga, Ron Hillel, Silvia Bornengo, Bruno Jolain, Mónica García, Jose Luis Narro
<p>Clinical studies (CS) have often struggled to recruit and retain participants that represent the population who will ultimately receive the treatments. This lack of representation leads to gaps in understanding diseases, preventive factors and the safety and effectiveness of treatments across diverse populations.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In this way, access to experimental health technologies—such as medicinal drugs, vaccines and medical devices—remains limited to specific populations.</p><p>Improving inclusiveness and representativeness in clinical studies is not just a matter of equity but a crucial step to ensure the quality and impact of clinical studies.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Thus, broadening the scope of those who are included in clinical studies can be regarded as an attempt to ensure that innovations in healthcare are accessible to all, reducing disparities not only in Europe but across the globe. This approach will ultimately lead to more reliable data and more effective treatments that truly serve the needs of a diverse population.</p><p>Various factors are associated with health disparities, including but not limited to demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, gender, socio-economic status or age. Clinical studies must actively consider populations that have historically been underserved (US) and underrepresented (UR) in clinical studies. However, several barriers hinder participation, particularly among US and UR populations. These include geographic limitations, mistrust, restricted access to relevant information, ineffective communication, societal prejudices, financial constraints among other factors.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span></p><p>Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental transformation in the design and execution of clinical studies to ensure a truly representative patient population is identified and provided with equitable opportunities to participate. To drive this transformation, it is essential that relevant clinical study information is widely distributed and accessible to all populations, that professionals involved are properly trained and empowered to design, develop and manage innovative studies tailored to diverse populations, and that key stakeholders—including patients, caregivers and patient organizations—are actively involved in design, educated and engaged, as their participation is vital to the success of clinical studies.<span><sup>7</sup></span></p><p>In this challenging context, the Research in Europe and Diversity Inclusion (READI) Project aims to create a more integrated and democratic ecosystem for clinical studies by identifying barriers to inclusiveness and representativeness, setting a new standard for equity in clinical studies and fostering the empowerment of all stakeholders. Through this engaged ecosystem, stakeholders can provide and share innovative approaches, tools, training programs and valuable insights to facilitate reach, engagement, recruitment and retention of u
临床研究(CS)常常难以招募和留住代表最终接受治疗的人群的参与者。这种代表性的缺乏导致在了解不同人群的疾病、预防因素以及治疗的安全性和有效性方面存在差距这样,获得实验性卫生技术——如药品、疫苗和医疗设备——仍然仅限于特定人群。提高临床研究的包容性和代表性不仅是公平问题,而且是确保临床研究质量和影响的关键一步因此,扩大临床研究对象的范围可被视为一种尝试,以确保所有人都能获得医疗保健方面的创新,不仅在欧洲而且在全球范围内缩小差距。这种方法最终将产生更可靠的数据和更有效的治疗方法,真正满足不同人群的需求。与健康差异有关的因素有很多,包括但不限于人口特征,如种族、性别、社会经济地位或年龄。临床研究必须积极考虑在临床研究中历史上服务不足(US)和代表性不足(UR)的人群。然而,一些障碍阻碍了参与,特别是在美国和UR人群中。这些因素包括地理限制、不信任、获取相关信息受限、沟通无效、社会偏见、财政限制等因素。解决这些挑战需要从根本上改变临床研究的设计和执行,以确保确定真正具有代表性的患者群体,并为其提供公平的参与机会。为了推动这一转变,至关重要的是,相关的临床研究信息被广泛分发,所有人群都可以访问,相关专业人员得到适当的培训和授权,以设计、开发和管理针对不同人群的创新研究,关键利益相关者——包括患者、护理人员和患者组织——积极参与设计、教育和参与,因为他们的参与对临床研究的成功至关重要。在这种具有挑战性的背景下,欧洲研究和多样性包容性(READI)项目旨在通过识别包容性和代表性的障碍,为临床研究的公平性设定新标准,并促进所有利益相关者的赋权,为临床研究创造一个更加整合和民主的生态系统。通过这个参与式生态系统,利益相关者可以提供和分享创新方法、工具、培训计划和有价值的见解,以促进服务不足和代表性不足的参与者的接触、参与、招募和保留,增强CS的包容性和代表性。READI项目将通过一个创新的数字平台进一步加速和维持其影响,该平台旨在增强对临床研究信息的获取并加强利益相关者的联系。通过采用交叉和整体的方法,READI将确保项目持续时间之外的长期可持续性,最终改变欧洲临床研究的进行方式。此外,READI将与各种全球临床研究计划保持一致,如世卫组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)8和Vulcan加速器9等。为了实现其雄心勃勃的目标,READI已经组建了欧洲临床研究计划中最大的联盟之一由来自18个国家的73个组织组成:比利时、塞浦路斯、丹麦、法国、德国、爱尔兰、意大利、立陶宛、卢森堡、荷兰、葡萄牙、罗马尼亚、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、英国、美国和巴西(图1)。这些组织涵盖了参与临床研究的所有利益相关者:患者组织(参与此类项目的人数最多)、学术研究中心、医院、技术公司、欧洲制药工业和协会联合会(EFPIA)、监管机构、伦理专家、卫生技术评估和临床研究专业人员。这个多学科联盟的预算为6680万欧元,旨在促进交叉合作,以确保临床研究的各个方面——从研究设计到实施——都体现包容性和公平性的原则,从而使每个人都能获得医疗保健领域的创新。 此外,该项目围绕4个主要支柱和10个相互关联的工作包(WPs)构建,每个工作包都涉及项目目标的一个关键组成部分(图2):所有这些工作包并行推进,由学术机构、患者代表、民间社会和EFPIA成员共同领导,确保公共和私营部门之间的平衡合作(表1),所有这些工作包都参与指导委员会。该项目的整体协调工作由Alberto Borobia (SERMAS)担任协调员,Juliette Guillot(诺华)担任项目负责人,Amanda Bok (The Synergist)担任数字和可持续发展协调员。这种结构确保了所有项目合作伙伴之间的适当开发、WP互连和协作工作,从而保证了其目标的成功和实现。正如前文所述,READI项目将改变欧洲临床研究的开展方式。它旨在改变临床试验生态系统和能力,以患者为中心,关键利益相关者从设计阶段到交付阶段进行协作。这样,所产生的知识不仅本身有益,而且有助于提出建议,以促进社会服务的包容性代表性和制定道德标准。它将提供一种创新的方法来招募服务不足和代表性不足的人群,并通过扩大能够在欧洲开展CS的站点网络,通过为不同的实体提供招募和留住美国和欧洲人口的必要能力,改变CS通信。具体来说,它有望扩大对服务不足和代表性不足人群的理解,与历史数据相比,CS招聘代表性增加60%。在此过程中,将制定一套商定的人口统计描述符数据标准,以及一个患者招募工具箱,其中包括覆盖至少100个组织的数字平台。测试这些工具是至关重要的,因此将开发至少四个临床用例来证明它们的影响和有效性。READI项目解决了临床研究中包容性的关键系统性障碍,如地理限制或不信任。通过利用整体、交叉的方法,READI旨在使临床研究的可及性民主化,并提高美国和UR人群在CS中的代表性。关键的创新,如人工智能驱动的数字平台和为美国和欧洲人群开发一套标准化的描述符,将提高招聘效率,提高保留率,并增加临床研究结果的普遍性。为了进一步支持患者参与,社区集群和有针对性的教育活动将有助于消除参与障碍。此外,对能力建设的关注确保了欧洲各地的临床站点配备了必要的技能和工具,以有效地接触美国和尿道口人群并与之互动。用例的实现为验证这些创新和生成支持长期可持续性的可操作的见解提供了一个实用的框架。READI项目代表了欧洲临床研究行为的范式转变,增强了包容性和公平性。通过解决限制服务不足和代表性不足人群参与的系统性障碍,READI有可能使临床研究更具代表性和影响力。该项目的成果不仅将有助于在欧洲及其他地区建立道德、有效和包容的CS实践,而且还将促进医疗保健领域的创新。未来的研究应以这些成就为基础,完善方法并促进全球采用包容性CS标准。Alberto M. Borobia:项目协调,概念化,手稿准备和关键审查的监督。Juliette Guillot:项目领导,财团协调和起草关键部分。Amanda Bok, l<s:1> prooulx, Ron Hillel, Bruno Jolain, Sandra Pla, Mónica García, Paloma Moraga, Jose Luis Narro和Silvia Bornengo:提供内容专业知识,为撰写和审查与其机构工作包相关的特定部分做出贡献。所有作者都对稿件做出了贡献,审阅了最终版本并批准提交。导致本出版物的项目由创新健康倡议联合事业(IHI JU)支持,赠款协议号为101166227。JU得到了欧盟地平线欧洲研究和创新计划、COCIR、EFPIA、EuropaBio、MedTech Europe、Vaccines Europe、药品和保健产品监管机构和Breakthrough T1D的支持。
{"title":"The READI European project: Enhancing inclusivity in clinical research","authors":"Alberto M. Borobia, Juliette Guillot, Amanda Bok, Lea Proulx, Sandra Pla, Paloma Moraga, Ron Hillel, Silvia Bornengo, Bruno Jolain, Mónica García, Jose Luis Narro","doi":"10.1111/eci.70146","DOIUrl":"10.1111/eci.70146","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Clinical studies (CS) have often struggled to recruit and retain participants that represent the population who will ultimately receive the treatments. This lack of representation leads to gaps in understanding diseases, preventive factors and the safety and effectiveness of treatments across diverse populations.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In this way, access to experimental health technologies—such as medicinal drugs, vaccines and medical devices—remains limited to specific populations.</p><p>Improving inclusiveness and representativeness in clinical studies is not just a matter of equity but a crucial step to ensure the quality and impact of clinical studies.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Thus, broadening the scope of those who are included in clinical studies can be regarded as an attempt to ensure that innovations in healthcare are accessible to all, reducing disparities not only in Europe but across the globe. This approach will ultimately lead to more reliable data and more effective treatments that truly serve the needs of a diverse population.</p><p>Various factors are associated with health disparities, including but not limited to demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, gender, socio-economic status or age. Clinical studies must actively consider populations that have historically been underserved (US) and underrepresented (UR) in clinical studies. However, several barriers hinder participation, particularly among US and UR populations. These include geographic limitations, mistrust, restricted access to relevant information, ineffective communication, societal prejudices, financial constraints among other factors.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span></p><p>Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental transformation in the design and execution of clinical studies to ensure a truly representative patient population is identified and provided with equitable opportunities to participate. To drive this transformation, it is essential that relevant clinical study information is widely distributed and accessible to all populations, that professionals involved are properly trained and empowered to design, develop and manage innovative studies tailored to diverse populations, and that key stakeholders—including patients, caregivers and patient organizations—are actively involved in design, educated and engaged, as their participation is vital to the success of clinical studies.<span><sup>7</sup></span></p><p>In this challenging context, the Research in Europe and Diversity Inclusion (READI) Project aims to create a more integrated and democratic ecosystem for clinical studies by identifying barriers to inclusiveness and representativeness, setting a new standard for equity in clinical studies and fostering the empowerment of all stakeholders. Through this engaged ecosystem, stakeholders can provide and share innovative approaches, tools, training programs and valuable insights to facilitate reach, engagement, recruitment and retention of u","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12825408/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The C statistic, also known as the concordance index (C-index), is widely used in clinical research to assess the discriminative ability of risk prediction models. Its appeal lies in its intuitive interpretation and broad applicability, particularly in fields such as cardiovascular medicine and oncology, where accurate risk stratification is essential. However, despite its popularity, the C statistic has notable limitations that can undermine its utility in both research and clinical practice. Chief among these is its inherent conservativeness: the C statistic is often insensitive to meaningful improvements in model performance when new biomarkers or risk factors are added to an already robust model. This insensitivity stems from its rank-based nature, which focuses solely on the correct ordering of risk predictions rather than the magnitude of improvement. As a result, significant advances in risk estimation may be overlooked, potentially discouraging the adoption of clinically valuable innovations. Furthermore, the C statistic does not account for calibration—the agreement between predicted and observed outcomes—or the clinical consequences of misclassification. Alternative metrics, such as the Mean Absolute Difference (MAD), Brier score and Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI), offer complementary perspectives by capturing aspects of predictive accuracy and clinical relevance that the C statistic may miss. A comprehensive evaluation of risk models should therefore integrate these alternative measures to ensure that predictive tools are both statistically robust and clinically meaningful, ultimately advancing patient care and the practice of precision medicine.
{"title":"The conservativeness of standard C statistics in the prediction of clinical events","authors":"Carmine Zoccali, Giovanni Tripepi","doi":"10.1111/eci.70150","DOIUrl":"10.1111/eci.70150","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The C statistic, also known as the concordance index (C-index), is widely used in clinical research to assess the discriminative ability of risk prediction models. Its appeal lies in its intuitive interpretation and broad applicability, particularly in fields such as cardiovascular medicine and oncology, where accurate risk stratification is essential. However, despite its popularity, the C statistic has notable limitations that can undermine its utility in both research and clinical practice. Chief among these is its inherent conservativeness: the C statistic is often insensitive to meaningful improvements in model performance when new biomarkers or risk factors are added to an already robust model. This insensitivity stems from its rank-based nature, which focuses solely on the correct ordering of risk predictions rather than the magnitude of improvement. As a result, significant advances in risk estimation may be overlooked, potentially discouraging the adoption of clinically valuable innovations. Furthermore, the C statistic does not account for calibration—the agreement between predicted and observed outcomes—or the clinical consequences of misclassification. Alternative metrics, such as the Mean Absolute Difference (MAD), Brier score and Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI), offer complementary perspectives by capturing aspects of predictive accuracy and clinical relevance that the C statistic may miss. A comprehensive evaluation of risk models should therefore integrate these alternative measures to ensure that predictive tools are both statistically robust and clinically meaningful, ultimately advancing patient care and the practice of precision medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Diana Santos, Ana Burgeiro, Ana Catarina R. G. Fonseca, Cândida Dias, Teresa Cunha-Oliveira, Aryane Oliveira, João Laranjinha, António Canotilho, Gonçalo Coutinho, David Prieto, Pedro Antunes, Manuel Antunes, Eugenia Carvalho