Grip strength values and cut-off points based on over 200,000 adults of the German National Cohort - a comparison to the EWGSOP2 cut-off points

BACKGROUND: The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) updated in 2018 the cut-off points for low grip strength to assess sarcopenia based on pooled data from 12 British studies. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the EWGSOP2 cut-off points for low grip strength to those derived from a large German sample. METHODS: We assessed the grip strength distribution across age and derived low grip strength cut-off points for men and women (peak mean -2.5 × SD) based on 200,389 German National Cohort (NAKO) participants aged 19–75 years. In 1,012 Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (KORA)-Age participants aged 65–93 years, we calculated the age-standardised prevalence of low grip strength and time-dependent sensitivity and specificity for all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Grip strength increased in the third and fourth decade of life and declined afterwards. Calculated cut-off points for low grip strength were 29 kg for men and 18 kg for women. In KORA-Age, the age-standardised prevalence of low grip strength was 1.5× higher for NAKO-derived (17.7%) compared to EWGSOP2 (11.7%) cut-off points. NAKO-derived cut-off points yielded a higher sensitivity and lower specificity for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Cut-off points for low grip strength from German population-based data were 2 kg higher than the EWGSOP2 cut-off points. Higher cut-off points increase the sensitivity, thereby suggesting an intervention for more patients at risk, while other individuals might receive additional diagnostics/treatment without the urgent need. Research on the effectiveness of intervention in patients with low grip strength defined by different cut-off points is needed

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.</p

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 european clinical research infrastructures network (ecrin) countries

Background: In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. Methods: We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. Results: Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. Conclusion: The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term \u27investigational medicinal product\u27 and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term \u27typical\u27 investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN)

Abstract Background Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. Methods In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. Results The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. Conclusion The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.</p

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the european clinical research infrastructures network (ecrin)

Background: Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. Methods: In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. Results: The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. Conclusion: The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe