Clinical Trials Unit Research Articles

Barriers to conducting cancer trials in Canada: an analysis of key informant interviews.

In Canada, there is growing evidence that oncology clinical trials units (ctus) and programs face serious financial challenges. Investment in cancer research in Canada has declined almost 20% in the 5 years since its peak in 2011, and the costs of conducting leading-edge trials are rising. Clinical trials units must therefore be strategic about which studies they open. We interviewed Canadian health care professionals responsible for running cancer trials programs to identify the barriers to sustainability that they face. One-on-one telephone interviews were conducted with clinicians and clinical research professionals at oncology ctus in Canada. We asked for their perspectives about the barriers to conducting trials at their institutions, in their provinces, and nationwide. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and coded in the NVivo software application (version 11: QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). The initial coding structure was informed by the interview script, with new concepts drawn out and coded during analysis, using a constant comparative approach. Between June 2017 and November 2018, 25 interviews were conducted. Key barriers that participants identified were■ insufficient stable funding to support trials infrastructure and retain staff;■ the need to adopt strict cost-recovery policies, leading to fewer academic trials in portfolios; and■ an overreliance on industry to fund clinical research in Canada. Funding uncertainties have led ctus to increasingly rely on industry sponsorship and more stringent feasibility thresholds to remain solvent. Retaining skilled trials staff can create efficiencies in opening and running studies, with spillover effects of more trials being open to patients. More academic studies are needed to curb industry's influence.

Challenges in early phase clinical trials for childhood cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a report from the new agents group of the Spanish Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology (SEHOP).

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare stakeholders towards challenging decisions. We analyse the impact of the pandemic on the conduct of phase I–II trials for paediatric cancer during the first month of state of alarm in Spain.MethodsA questionnaire was sent to all five ITCC-accredited Spanish Paediatric Oncology Early Phase Clinical Trial Units, including questions about impact on staff activities, recruitment, patient care, supply of investigational products, and legal aspects.ResultsAll units suffered personnel shortages and difficulties in enrolling patients, treatment continuity, or performing trial assessments. Monitoring activity was frequently postponed (73%), and 49% of on-going trials interrupted recruitment. Only two patients could be recruited during this period (75% reduction in the expected rate).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 crisis has significantly impacted clinical research practice and access to innovation for children with cancer. Structural and functional changes are under way to better cope with the expected future restrictions.

Scientific Editing in the COVID‐19 Era—Personal Vignettes from the JBMR Editors

Scientific Editing in the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 Era—Personal Vignettes from the <scp><i>JBMR</i></scp> Editors

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: a survey to establish current practice

BackgroundPatient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional’s skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials.MethodsA survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate.ResultsForty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided.ConclusionsWidespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Where do we go from here? \u2013 Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals

BackgroundClinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers’ Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce.MethodsWe conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes.ResultsThe survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles.ConclusionCareer development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

Current provision of simulation in the UK and Republic of Ireland trauma and orthopaedic specialist training: a national survey.

AimsThe primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation.MethodsThe development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK.ResultsOverall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes.ConclusionThere is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision.

Current provision of simulation in the UK and Republic of Ireland trauma and orthopaedic specialist training: a national survey

Aims The primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&amp;O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation. Methods The development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Results Overall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes. Conclusion There is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&amp;O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision.

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study

BackgroundRecruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful.MethodsA scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March–June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach.ResultsResponses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: ‘security and transparency’; ‘inclusivity and engagement’; ‘human interaction’; ‘obstacles and risks’; and ‘potential benefits’. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants.ConclusionsOur studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

Statistical models to predict recruitment in clinical trials were rarely used by statisticians in UK and European networks

ObjectiveIdentify the current practice for recruitment prediction and monitoring within clinical trials. Study Design and SettingChief investigators (CIs) were surveyed to identify data sources and adjustments made to support recruitment prediction. Statisticians were surveyed to determine methods and adjustments used when predicting and monitoring recruitment. Participants were identified from the National Institute for Health Research recently funded studies, the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trial Units network or by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. ResultsA total of 51 CIs (UK = 32, ECRIN = 19) and 104 statisticians (UK = 51, ECRIN = 53) were contacted. Response rates varied (CIs UK = 53% ECRIN = 32%; statisticians UK = 98% ECRIN = 36%).Multiple data sources are used to support recruitment rates, most commonly audit data from multiple sites. Variation in individual site recruitment rates are frequently incorporated, but staggered site openings were featured more commonly among UK respondents. Simple prediction methods are preferred to rarely used statistical models. Lack of familiarity with statistical methods are barriers to their use with evidence needed to justify the time required to support their implementation. ConclusionSimplistic methods will continue as the mainstay of prediction; however, generation of evidence supporting the benefits of complex statistical models should promote their implementations. Multiple data sources to support recruitment prediction are being used, and further work on the quality of these data is needed. Pressure to be optimistic about recruitment rates for the trial to be attractive to funders was felt by a sizable minority.

Predictive value of blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide in adults with mild asthma: a prespecified subgroup analysis of an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Whether blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are associated with important outcomes in mild asthma is unclear. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of a previously published open-label clinical trial, we aimed to assess associations between blood eosinophil counts and FeNO with outcomes and response to asthma treatment. In the previously reported 52-week, open-label, randomised controlled trial, people with mild asthma receiving only β agonist reliever inhalers were enrolled at one of 16 clinical trials units in New Zealand, the UK, Italy, or Australia. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1, stratified by country), to receive inhalers to take as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 μg in a pressurised metered dose inhaler), maintenance budesonide (200 μg twice per day by inhaler) plus as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 μg), or as-needed budesonide-formoterol (one inhalation of 200 μg budesonide and 6μg formoterol by inhaler). The primary outcome was the annual rates of asthma exacerbations per patient, and in this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed whether annual exacerbation rates in each treatment group were significantly different depending on levels of blood eosinophil count, FeNO, or a composite score of both. Analyses were done for patients with available biomarker measurements The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000999538. 675 participants were enrolled between March 17, 2016, and Aug 29, 2017, of whom 656 had results for blood eosinophil analysis and 668 had results for FeNO. Of the patients who received as-needed salbutamol, the proportion of patients having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count (two [4%] of 49 participants with <0·15 × 109/L, six [6%] of 93 with 0·15 to <0·3 × 109/L, and 15 [19%] of 77 with ≥0·3 × 109/L; p=0·014). There were no significant interactions between blood eosinophil count or FeNO level and the effect of as-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with as-needed salbutamol for either exacerbations or severe exacerbations. However, there were significant interactions between blood eosinophil count subgroups and the effect of maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol compared with as-needed salbutamol, both for exacerbations (p=0·0006) and severe exacerbations (p=0·0007). Maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol was more effective than as-needed salbutamol in patients with blood eosinophil counts of 0·3 × 109/L or more, both for exacerbations (rate ratio 0·13 [95% CI 0·05-0·33]) and severe exacerbations (risk odds ratio 0·11 [0·03-0·45]). This difference was not seen for blood eosinophil counts of less than 0·15 × 109/L (1·15 [0·51-1·28] for exacerbations and 5·72 [0·97-33·60] for severe exacerbations). There was no consistent interaction between treatment response and FeNO or the composite score. In patients with mild asthma, the effects of as-needed budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations are independent of biomarker profile, whereas the benefits of maintenance inhaled budesonide are greater in patients with high blood eosinophil counts than in patients with low counts. AstraZeneca, Health Research Council of New Zealand.

P3BEP (ANZUP 1302): An international randomized phase III trial of accelerated versus standard BEP chemotherapy for adult and pediatric male and female patients with intermediate and poor-risk metastatic germ cell tumors (GCTs).

TPS425 Background: Bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin (BEP) given 3-weekly x 4 remains standard 1st line chemotherapy for metastatic GCTs. Acceleration of standard regimen with shorter cycle lengths has improved cure rates in other cancers. This is the first international randomised clinical trial for intermediate and poor-risk metastatic extracranial GCTs involving both adult and paediatric age group males and females. We aim to determine if accelerated BEP is superior to standard BEP. Methods: DESIGN: Open label, randomised, stratified multicentre, 2 stage, phase 3 trial. Primary endpoint for stage I (n = 150) is the achievement of a favourable response, and for entire trial (n = 500) is progression free survival (PFS). SAMPLE SIZE: 150 and 500 patients gives &gt; 80% power to detect a 20% improvement in the favourable response rate and 7% absolute improvement in 2yr PFS, respectively. POPULATION: Males and females aged 11-45 years with intermediate or poor-risk metastatic GCTs of the testis, ovary, retroperitoneum or mediastinum for 1st line chemotherapy. TREATMENT: Randomisation 1:1 to 4 cycles of “standard BEP” or “accelerated BEP”: cisplatin 20mg/m2 IV D1-5; etoposide 100mg/m2 IV D1-5; bleomycin 30000 IU IV weekly; and pegylated G-CSF SC D6 or filgrastim daily; given every 3 weeks or every 2 weeks respectively. Accelerated BEP arm receives 4 additional weekly doses of bleomycin. ASSESSMENTS: Response assessments at 30 day safety assessment, and 6 months from randomisation or after all post-chemotherapy intervention is completed. Regular follow-up up to 5 years, then annually. Archival tumour tissue and baseline blood collected for translational substudies. STATUS: 25 sites open in ANZ, 13 sites open in UK (led by Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit), 67 sites open in the USA (led by Children’s Oncology Group). As of September 2019, 98 patients have been recruited triggering the first formal interim analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02582697.

Monitoring in practice \u2013 How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

BackgroundDespite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs).MethodsAn online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018.Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question.ResultsA total of 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required.A total of 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out.The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern.ConclusionThe survey showed a wide variation in phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator-agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

Herbal Treatment with Uva Ursi Extract &lt;i&gt;versus&lt;/i&gt; Fosfomycin for Women with Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Phase 4 Trial (REGATTA)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance threatens the treatment success in patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI). Uva Ursi (UU) is a widely used herbal remedy, which is approved in Germany as Arbutin to treat symptoms of UTIs. We aimed to explore whether initial treatment with UU reduces antibiotic use in women with uncomplicated UTI without increasing symptom burden and rate of complications. Methods: We did a pragmatic double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial in 42 German general practices. Women aged 18–75 years with suspected uncomplicated UTI and at least two of the symptoms dysuria, urgency, frequency or low abdominal pain were randomly assigned (1:1) to either UU (dry extract) 105 mg 3 × 2 tablets for 5 days (intervention) or fosfomycin 3g single dose (control) and respective placebo dummies. Both participants and investigators were blinded. The two co-primary outcomes were 1) number of all antibiotic courses regardless of indication from day 0–28, and 2) symptom burden, defined as weighted sum of daily total symptom scores from day 0–7, both assessed by intention to treat. The predefined non-inferiority margin for symptom burden was 125%. Findings: Between May 3, 2017, and May 23, 2019, 917 women were screened, of whom 398 were randomly allocated to either UU (207) or fosfomycin (191). For the co-primary outcome 1) 385 women were analysed (UU 196, fosfomycin 189) and for 2) 398 (UU 207 and fosfomycin 191). Five women did not receive the intervention (UU 3, fosfomycin 2), and for 13 patients no information on antibiotic intake was available (UU 11, fosfomycin 2). The number of antibiotic courses from day 0–28 was 63∙6% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 53∙6%–71.4%, p<0.0001) in the UU group, with 92 courses as compared to 233 in the fosfomycin group. The ratio of the total symptom burden in the UU group compared to control was 136.5% (95% CI 122∙7–151∙9). In the UU group, eight women developed pyelonephritis and three fever as compared to two women with pyelonephritis and none with fever in the fosfomycin group. Otherwise there was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events. Interpretation: Initial treatment with UU reduced antibiotic use but lead to higher symptom burden in women with uncomplicated UTI. Higher occurrence of pyelonephritis and fever argue against UU as initial treatment in general. Our findings suggest that UU might provide a further non-antibiotic treatment approach for women who wish to avoid immediate antibiotics and as long as fast switch to antibiotic treatment is warranted. Trial Registration: The trial is registered with Clinical trials.gov, NCT03151603. Funding Statement: The study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) No. 01KG1601. Declaration of Interests: All authors declare that they have no competing interest and no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf. Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was done in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki and in cooperation with the Clinical Trials Unit of the University Medical Centre Gottingen. The trial protocol was developed following SPIRIT guidelines (standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials)19 and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Gottingen in November 2016 (Ref. Nr. 16/11/16).

Shortened treatment regimens versus the standard regimen for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis.

Shortened treatment regimens versus the standard regimen for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis.

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

SummaryBackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia.MethodsVAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes.InterpretationAntibiotic use remains high in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antibiotic stewardship was not improved by a rapid, highly sensitive rule-out test. Prescribing culture, rather than poor test performance, might explain this absence of effect.FundingUK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust.

Radiotherapy Trial Set-up in the UK: Identifying Inefficiencies and Potential Solutions

AimsRadiotherapy clinical trials are integral to the development of new treatments to improve the outcomes of patients with cancer. A collaborative study by the National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group and the National Institute for Health Research was carried out to understand better if and why inefficiencies occur in the set-up of radiotherapy trials in the UK. Materials and methodsTwo online surveys collected information on the time taken for UK radiotherapy trials to reach key milestones during set-up and the research support currently being provided to radiotherapy centres to enable efficient clinical trial set-up. Semi-structured interviews with project managers and chief investigators identified better ways of working to improve trial set-up in the future. ResultsThe timelines for the set-up of 39 UK radiotherapy trials were captured in an online survey showing that the median time from grant approval to trial opening was 600 days (range 169–1172). There were 38 responses from radiotherapy centres to a survey asking about the current support provided for radiotherapy research. Most of these centres have more than one type of staff member dedicated to supporting radiotherapy research. The most frequent barrier to radiotherapy trial set-up identified was lack of physicists' time and lack of time for clinical oncologists to carry out research activities. Four main themes around trial set-up were identified from semi-structured interviews: the importance of communication and building relationships, the previous experience of the chief investigator and clinical trials units, a lack of resources and having the time and personnel required to produce trial documentation and to process trial approval requests. ConclusionsThis unique, collaborative project has provided up to date information about the current landscape of trial set-up and research support in the UK and identified several avenues on which to focus future efforts in order to support the excellent radiotherapy trial work carried out across the UK.

Improving Timely Linkage to Care among Newly Diagnosed HIV-Infected Youth: Results of SMILE.

Delayed linkage to care deprives youth living with HIV of the benefits of HIV treatment and risks increased HIV transmission. Developing and testing linkage-to-care models that are capable of simultaneously addressing structural and individual obstacles are necessary to attain national goals for timely linkage of newly diagnosed youth to care. We assessed an integrated, multi-pronged strategy for improving youth's timely linkage to care carried out in eight adolescent medicine clinical trials units (AMTUs) in the USA. In phase I, the intervention strategy paired intensive medical case management with formalized relationships to local health departments, including granting of public health authority (PHA) to four of the AMTUs. In phase II, local coalitions run by the AMTUs to address structural changes to meet youth's HIV prevention and HIV testing needs began to advocate for local structural changes to improve timely access to care. Results of an ARIMA model demonstrated sustained decline in the average number of days to link to care over a 6-year period (ARIMA (1,2,1) AIC = 245.74, BIC = 248.70, p < .01)). By the end of the study, approximately 90% of youth linked to care had an initial medical visit in 42 or fewer days post-diagnosis. PHA improved the timeliness of linkage to care (b = - 69.56, p < .05). A piecewise regression suggested the addition of structural change initiatives during phase II made a statistically significant contribution to reducing time to linkage over and above achievements attained via case management alone (F (3,19) = 5.48, p < .01; Adj. R2 = .3794). Multi-level linkage-to-care interventions show promise for improving youth's timely access to HIV medical care.

Changes in clinical trials of cancer drugs in mainland China over the decade 2009-18: a systematic review.

As a result of recent, substantial capacity building, a new landscape for cancer drug trials is emerging in China. However, data on the characteristics of cancer drug trials, and how they have changed over time, are scarce. Based on clinical trials published on the China Food and Drug Administration Registration and Information Disclosure Platform for Drug Clinical Studies, we aimed to systematically review changes over time in clinical trials of cancer drugs in mainland China from 2009 to 2018, to provide insight on the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry and identify unmet clinical needs of stakeholders. A total of 1493 trials of 751 newly tested cancer drugs were initiated. Increases over time were observed for the annual number of initiated trials, newly tested drugs, and newly added leading clinical trial units, with a sharp increase after 2016. Of the 1385 trials in which cancer types were identified, solid tumours (325 [23%] trials), non-small-cell lung cancer (232 [17%]), and lymphoma (126 [9%]) were the most common. A markedly uneven distribution was also observed in the geography of leading units with the largest number of leading units located in east China (50 [41%]) and the smallest number located in southwest China (4 [3%]). The growth trends we observed illustrate the progress in and increasing capability of cancer drug research and development achieved in mainland China over the decade from 2009. The low number of clinical trials on tumours with epidemiological characteristics unique to the Chinese population and the unbalanced geographical distribution of leading clinical trial units will provide potential targets for policy makers and other stakeholders. Further research efforts should address cancers uniquely relevant to Chinese populations, globally rare cancers, and the balance between equitable drug access, efficiency, and sustainability of cancer drug research and development in mainland China.

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues.

Background/aims:Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage.Methods:We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs.Results:In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan.Conclusion:A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Survey by TEDDY European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research demonstrates potential for Europe-wide trials.

The European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research, known as the TEDDY Network, carried out a survey to determine the capacity and competence of paediatric centres to perform research studies. A cross-sectional, web-based pilot survey was conducted from October 2016 to April 2017 with paediatric clinical research centres in 11 countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. All were registered with the TEDDY Network database. We approached 107 centres and 63 provided data on their experiences and expertise in paediatric clinical trials. Four groups of performance indicators were identified, referring to scientific experience, trial readiness, trial competence, regulatory issues, ethics and patients. Most centres were actively involved in paediatric clinical research: 53 centres (84.1%) had received funds for more than five paediatric studies in the last 5years, and 42 (66.7%) had a specific clinical trial unit and dedicated study coordinators. We concluded that the European centres we studied had the capability and capacity to conduct paediatric trials, but there was still room for improvement, including enhanced collaboration. This pilot survey demonstrated that there is potential for performing paediatric trials across Europe, but improvements are possible.