Differences between Academic and Non-Academic Institutions in Heart Failure Clinical Trials in North America: Insights from the HFSA Research Network Survey

Abstract

Background The conduct of rigorous HF clinical trials requires participation from a wide variety of institutions and partnerships across academic, non-academic, Veterans Affairs, and industry. We aimed to examine differences between academic and non-academic centers in the conduct of HF clinical trials in North America. Methods HFSA distributed an electronic survey to examine the current state of HF clinical trial activity. Surveys were distributed to current or past HFSA members and affiliates, HF members of AHA and ACC. Pearson s chi-squared test was applied to categorical data. Results A total of615 surveys were returned. Of these, 410 respondents reported being currently active in the conduct of HF trials and were included in this analysis. Respondents represented 45 states and 331 distinct institutions. Most respondents were physicians (n=269, 66%), followed by nurses or nurse practitioners (n=83, 20%) and pharmacists (n=20, 5%). The majority of respondents were from academic centers (n=311, 75.5%), followed by non-academic (n=59, 14%), industry (n=22, 5%), and Veterans Affairs (n=18, 4%). Academic and non-academic institutions participated in a similar number of trials per year and reported similar numbers of subjects enrolled per year (Table). In addition, regulatory and staff resources including time to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, access to a central IRB, timeline for execution of contracts and number of study coordinators were not different between academic and non-academic institutions. Respondents from academic institutions did report more publications per year than those from non-academic institutions and participation differed in types of trials. Involvement as a lead national primary investigator or co-investigator for multi-centered trials was higher in academic institutions than non-academic institutions (40% vs 29%). Conclusion Academic and non-academic institutions contributed similarly to the conduct of HF clinical trials across North America. Regulatory and staff resources were also comparable. Opportunities exist to better engage non-academic investigators in publications and other leadership opportunities within multi-centered HF clinical trials.