Trial Team Research Articles

Telehealth in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient, research staff, and clinician perspectives regarding the effects of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations on safety, quality, and experience in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. METHODS: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from May to June 2022 with purposively sampled clinical trial participants, research staff, and clinicians involved in gynecologic oncology clinical trials with telehealth utilization. Participants described telehealth in clinical trial experiences, including benefits and barriers to receipt and provision of care, satisfaction, and quality. Transcripts were coded and analyzed with a modified content analysis approach based on research objectives and emergent themes. An adapted version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire was administered to all invited participants. RESULTS: Five patients, seven clinicians, and five research staff were interviewed. Patients and clinicians reported that telehealth, remote testing, and medication delivery positively affected quality of life by reducing financial burden, wait times, and transportation needs. Interviewees did not report telehealth-related changes in treatment-related adverse effects, referrals for urgent evaluation, or compromise of privacy but expressed concerns about the lack of physical examinations. Patients reported that telehealth increased scheduling burden without negative effects on care quality, counseling comprehension, relationships with trial teams, or satisfaction. Clinicians and research staff reported improved workflows regarding remote consent, sponsor interactions, and documentation but challenges with virtual patient education and off-site testing. Clinicians highlighted disparities for patients with limited technology access and reported institutional and insurance-based telehealth policies as barriers. Survey responses supported qualitative findings. CONCLUSION: Despite notable limitations, patients, research staff, and clinicians recommended continued utilization of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations in clinical trials. Future clinical trial designs should consider telehealth inclusion.

Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania

BackgroundResearch in children is essential for them to benefit from the outcomes of research but involvement must be weighed against potential harms. In many countries and circumstances, medical research legally requires parental consent until the age of 18 years, with poorly defined recommendations for assent prior to this. However, there is little research exploring how these decisions are made by families and the ethical implications of this.AimTo explore key ethical debates in decision-making for participation of children and adolescents in a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were undertaken with Tanzanian girls (aged 9–16 years) who had participated in an HPV vaccine trial (n = 13), their parents or guardians (n = 12), and girls together with their parents (in paired parent-child interviews) (n = 6). The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Interview data came from a qualitative acceptability study undertaken as part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS) trial.ResultsGirls and parents desired collaborative decision-making, with parents ultimately making the decision to consent. However, girls wanted a larger part in decision-making. Decisions to consent involved many people, including extended social networks, the trial team, media outlets and healthcare professionals and this resulted in conflicts to be negotiated. Deciding where to place trust was central in participants and parents considering decisions to consent and overcoming rumours about trial involvement.ConclusionsExisting models of decision-making help to understand dynamics between parents, adolescents and researchers but neglect the important wider social impacts and the fundamental nature of trust. Children’s roles in discussions can be evaluated using the principles of consent: autonomy, freedom and information. Concepts such as relational autonomy help to explain mechanisms families use to negotiate complex consent decisions. Whilst interviewees supported the maintenance of legal parental consent, researchers must design consent processes centring the child to ensure that whole family decision-making processes are supported.

Associations Between Deficit Accumulation Frailty and Baseline Markers of Lifestyle in the US POINTER Trial.

Multidomain lifestyle interventions may have the potential to slow biological aging as captured by deficit accumulation frailty indices. We describe the distribution and composition of the 49-component frailty index (FI) developed by the U.S. POINTER clinical trial team of investigators and assess its cross-sectional associations with sociodemographic factors and markers chosen to be representative of behaviors targeted by the trial's multidomain interventions. We draw baseline data from the 2111 volunteers enrolled in U.S. POINTER who were ages 60-79 years and at increased risk for cognitive decline. Frailty components were grouped into nine domains. Associations that FI scores and their domains had with behavioral markers were described with correlations and canonical correlation. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the frailty index score distribution were 0.153, 0.189, and 0.235. Higher frailty scores tended to occur among individuals who were older, male, and living in areas of greater deprivation (all p<0.001). They were also associated with poorer self-reported diet, less physical activity, and higher Framingham risk scores (all p<0.001). Associations were diffusely distributed among the frailty component domains, indicating that no individual domain was dominating associations. The U.S. POINTER deficit accumulation frailty index had expected relationships with sociodemographic factors and sensitivity to the behaviors targeted by the trial's interventions. Our analysis supports its use as a secondary outcome to assess whether the multidomain interventions differentially impact an established marker of biological aging.

How should trial teams make decisions about the proportions and diversity of the ethnic groups in their trial?

BackgroundThe benefits of randomised trials are not shared equally, and people from ethnic minority groups are a key constituency under-served by clinical research and clinical care. The STRIDE project aimed to give trialists practical information about how to decide which ethnic groups should be in their trials, and at what proportion.MethodsWe considered trials in six clinical areas: cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, maternal health, mental health, and smoking cessation. We created a summary for each, including participants–intervention–comparators–outcomes, and data on disease prevalence by ethnicity. These were discussed with panels with clinical expertise, trial and methodology expertise, lived experience, funding, and experience of working with and on behalf of ethnic communities. For each trial, we asked panel members to decide which ethnic groups should have been involved and at what proportion.ResultsWe discussed 23 trials with 40 individual panel members. Panels found our questions difficult to answer. The lack of publicly available data on prevalence by ethnicity was central to this. Where data were available, decision-making was easier but not simple.The discussions led to eight STRIDE recommendations. We recommend that discussions involve diverse teams and that discussions need time, with access to the best available data. In the absence of data or consensus, we recommend the adoption of ‘default’ minimum rates of inclusion, with oversampling considered. These discussions should inform site selection, and the practical challenges of recruitment and retention should not determine which groups are to be included.We also suggest five policy initiatives to support implementation of the recommendations. Broadly, these are (1) funders need to signal that ethnic diversity is expected, (2) trial teams need access to better data, (3) funders and others need to signal that ethnic diversity means better science, (4) more funding is needed for evaluation, and (5) Good Clinical Practice training should cover ethnic diversity.ConclusionsAgreeing targets for which ethnic groups to involve in a trial is essential but difficult. Our eight recommendations could help to make trials more ethnically diverse if followed, and we suggest five policy initiatives that would create a supportive environment for their implementation.

Optimizing diversity, equity and inclusion in pragmatic clinical trials: Findings from the Pain Management Collaboratory

The National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs established a Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) in 2017, with the purpose of implementing and evaluating nonpharmacological approaches for management of pain and co-occurring conditions in military and veteran healthcare systems through the execution of pragmatic clinical trials. The purpose of the current study is to detail and critically examine recruitment and retention procedures across the PMC’s large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials, with attention to efforts made by trialists to diversify their study samples. Team members from 11 pragmatic clinical trials completed semi-structured interviews that focused on the meaning of diversity to the trial teams when planning the composition of their samples, methods used to recruit and retain diverse samples of patients, and planned analyses that take into consideration diverse subgroups of patients. Nearly 18,000 patients have been enrolled across trials, 22 % of whom were assigned female sex at birth and 34 % of whom identify with a marginalized race or ethnicity. Respondents highlighted study site selection, formation of partnerships with patient groups, and leveraging of data informatics as strategies that aided in the recruitment of patients diverse in terms of birth sex, race, and ethnicity. Notably, trialists adopted a narrow definition of diversity that did not take into consideration multiple intersecting identities of trial participants. Based on experiences of the PMC, we provide 14 recommendations on ways to diversify patient samples in clinical pain research. PerspectiveThis article describes challenges posed, and opportunities provided, with pain pragmatic clinical trial designs, emphasizing approaches that optimize the inclusion of social identity groups that have historically been under-represented in pain research.

Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams.

There are documented gender disparities in the legal field. We examined whether gender representation on civil trial teams varied on the basis of (a) the degree of regional gender bias "in the air" and (b) time. We hypothesized that women were underrepresented both on trial teams and in leadership roles within those teams. We predicted that these gender disparities were exacerbated in regions with stronger regional gender bias and that these gender disparities attenuated over time. We coded attorney gender and case outcomes in real civil trials (N = 655). We created regional implicit and explicit gender bias scores based on the year and region of the case using Project Implicit data. Finally, we used order-constrained inference and Bayesian modeling to identify the best-performing models. Overall, women represented only 17% of attorneys at trial and 13% in leadership roles-indicating vast gender disparities. Gender disparities on teams and in leadership roles were more extreme in regions with high (vs. low) regional gender bias (teams: Bayes factor [BF] = 9,182; leadership: BF = 91,667) and improved over time (teams: BF = 6,420; leadership: BF = 3,495). Gender alone best predicted the likelihood of serving in a leadership role (BF = 1,197,397). Female attorneys were grossly underrepresented on civil trial teams. Gender representation on teams, but not leadership roles, has improved slightly over time. Culture may also contribute; women were less represented on trial teams in regions with greater gender bias in the air-particularly in leadership roles. Despite these slight improvements in representation on trial teams over time and in low-bias regions, gender disparities in leadership roles persist over time and levels of regional bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in decentralized clinical trials.

Decentralized clinical trials involving the use of digital tools to facilitate remote research are gaining momentum. Rapid advancements in digital technologies have supported the adoption of these trials. These innovations facilitate virtual interactions between clinical trial teams and participants by making it easier to collect, transfer and store electronic data. While some studies have demonstrated the potential for these approaches to reduce barriers to clinical trial participation, they are associated with several challenges that may create or worsen existing health inequalities and limit the generalizability of trial results. Here we review the potential for digitally enabled and decentralized clinical trials to enhance clinical trial participation in an equitable manner. We describe the key barriers individuals from underserved groups may face, and provide recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion.

Supplemental Material for Regional Gender Bias and Year Predict Gender Representation on Civil Trial Teams

Supplemental Material for Regional Gender Bias and Year Predict Gender Representation on Civil Trial Teams

The financial impact of participant attrition from randomised trials: a case-study from the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS).

Loss to follow-up of participants can compromise the statistical validity of randomised trials. Moreover, it can have financial consequences for trial teams and funders. This study explores the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS) where, despite a withdrawal rate of less than 10%, the trial team incurred opportunity costs related to participants who were initially recruited but subsequently decided to withdraw from the trial. To estimate the cost of participant losses to follow-up in the OTIS trial and thus introduce a costing framework to research teams on how they could estimate the opportunity costs of participant withdrawal from their randomised trials. The participants lost to follow-up are differentiated by (1) the time point at which they were lost to follow-up; (2) the treatment group they were allocated to; (3) their response patters to follow-up questionnaires; these elements were considered to identify the relevant types of attrition. Protocol-driven costs of trial materials, including administration, print, and shipping, were gathered. We calculated unit costs for each type of attrition by multiplying protocol-driven and intervention costs with the relevant number of participants. Summing up unit costs by type of loss to follow-up yields aggregate figures, enabling the estimation of aggregate and average opportunity costs of attrition. The average cost per participant loss to follow-up in the OTIS trial is £98.41. The aggregate cost of participant loss to follow-up is £10,234.90 from the economic perspective of the trial team. Therefore, 1.42% of the allocated funding has been misallocated because of participant loss to follow-up. Despite the low attrition rate of the OTIS trial, loss to follow-up has still generated considerable opportunity costs. It is recommended that decision makers focus on identifying strategies which could improve participant retention in randomised trials to optimise their budget.

What is the carbon footprint of academic clinical trials? A study of hotspots in 10 trials

BackgroundClinical trials are fundamental to healthcare, however, they also contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Following previous work to develop and test a method and guidance to calculate the carbon footprint...

Streamlining Clinical Trial Data from Raw to Regulatory Submission with R Shiny and Pharmaverse

In recent years, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries have increasingly adopted open-source tools to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and reproducibility of clinical trial data analysis. R Shiny, a web application framework for R, has become a key component in creating interactive dashboards and visualizations that support real-time data exploration and decision-making. As part of the Pharmaverse ecosystem, R Shiny plays a vital role in regulatory submissions, data analysis, and reporting, offering dynamic, user-friendly interfaces for clinical trial monitoring, patient safety reporting, and efficacy analysis. This abstract explores the application of R Shiny within the Pharmaverse, emphasizing its seamless integration with tools such as Tplyr and admiral for generating CDISC-compliant SDTM and ADaM datasets. Metadata management and validation are facilitated through OAK, ensuring consistency and traceability. The automated creation of Define.xml using tools like defineR further enhances transparency and regulatory compliance. Through case studies and practical examples, this abstract highlights how R Shiny and related tools improve data transparency, accelerate decision-making, and support regulatory compliance in clinical trials. By leveraging these open-source technologies, clinical trial teams can streamline data workflows, enhance collaboration, and improve outcomes, ultimately driving innovation within the pharmaceutical industry. The integration of these tools into a cohesive framework significantly enhances the submission process to regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA, ensuring that clinical data meets both industry and regulatory standards.

Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials

BackgroundIt is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials.MethodsDevelopment of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) ‘roundtable’ discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team.ResultsOver 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project—patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The ‘roundtable’ discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk.ConclusionResearchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population.

Systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials examining effectiveness of contingent financial rewards for smoking cessation during pregnancy: intention-to-treat and causal effects on birthweight.

Objective: To examine birth weight change caused by adding financial rewards for smoking cessation compared to no rewards for pregnant women. To estimate the average expected birth weight change for those who quit because of rewards. This study updates a previous systematic review and refocuses the outcome from smoking cessation to birth weight.Eligibility Criteria: Trials with an experimental design allowing treatment effects to be attributed to rewards were included. Trials involving non-pregnant participants, or with no report of magnitude, treatment duration, timing or where most rewards were contingent on another behaviour (e.g., treatment attendance) were excluded.Information sources: Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane (Central Register of Controlled Trials, Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register and Database of Systematic Reviews), and PubMed searched to 5th December 2023.Risk of bias: Risk of bias and certainty of evidence used Cochrane 'Risk of bias 2' and GRADE assessments.Synthesis of results: Primary analysis estimated Intention-To-Treat (ITT) mean birthweight difference when randomised to offer of rewards versus control. Within-trial estimates and standard errors were derived from mean, standard deviation, and sample size data provided, or from publications. Pooled ITT estimates used common (fixed) and random effects models. Secondary analyses used trial team supplied data to derive Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) estimate of smoking cessation on birth weight, and a standard error. Estimates were pooled using common and random effects models. Similar analyses were applied to low birth weight (<2500g), birth weight for gestational age z-scores, and small for gestational age (<10 th percentile). Included studies: Primary analysis included 8 trials (2351 participants) from the UK (2 trials, 1475 participants); France (1 trial, 407 participants), and the US (6 trials, 469 participants). Secondary analysis included 7 trials as data retrieval from one US trial (51 participants) was not possible.Synthesis of results: Primary ITT analysis (2351 participants) estimated a mean 46.3g (95% CI: 0.0 to 92.6) birth weight increase when offered financial rewards for smoking cessation. Secondary CACE analysis (2239 participants) estimated a mean 206.0g (95% CI: -69.1 to 481.1) increase for smokers who quit because of rewards. There was no effect on low birth weight (<2500g), or birth weight adjusted for gestational age, though less babies were born small for gestational age, particularly if cessation was because of rewards (CACE risk difference -17.7%; 95% CI: -34.9% to -0.4%). Limitation of evidence: Sample size led to imprecision - maximum 2351 participants. A single trial of 3712 participants would give 80% power at 5% significance to show a 46g increase from 3.1kg to 3.146kg with 0.5kg standard deviation in both groups. Consistency - trials where smoking cessation increased (7 of 8) all showed a mean birth weight increase. In one trial smoking cessation fell as did birth weight. Bias is unlikely as 3 of 4 trials with no birth weight data showed increased cessation consistent with higher mean birth weight. Interpretation: Trials of contingent financial rewards for smoking cessation have previously been shown to more than double pregnancy quit rates. We have uncovered a significant (46g) population level increase in mean birth weight, driven by a clinically important mean increase (206g) for those who quit because of financial rewards associated with a reduction in Small for Gestational Age births. Funding: Review update - The U.S. National Institute of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences Center of Biomedical Research Excellence Award P30GM149331. Data retrieval, synthesis and analysis - Scottish Cot Death Trust.Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024494262.

Applying the Estimand Framework to Non‐Inferiority Trials

Most published applications of the estimand framework have focused on superiority trials. However, non-inferiority trials present specific challenges compared to superiority trials. The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use notes in their addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials that there may be special considerations to the implementation of estimands in clinical trials with a non-inferiority objective yet provides little guidance. This paper discusses considerations that trial teams should make when defining estimands for a clinical trial with a non-inferiority objective. We discuss how the pre-addendum way of establishing non-inferiority can be embraced by the estimand framework including a discussion of the role of the Per Protocol analysis set. We examine what clinical questions of interest can be formulated in the context of non-inferiority trials and outline why we do not think it is sensible to describe an estimand as 'conservative'. The impact of the estimand framework on key considerations in non-inferiority trials such as whether trials should have more than one primary estimand, the choice of non-inferiority margin, assay sensitivity, switching from non-inferiority to superiority and estimation are discussed. We conclude by providing a list of recommendations, and important considerations for defining estimands for trials with a non-inferiority objective.

Turnover intention and its related factors of clinical research coordinator in Hunan, China: a cross-sectional study

To explore the related factors of turnover intention in clinical research coordinators (CRCs) and assess the mediating effects of professional identity on the association between job burnout and turnover intention. In China, CRC has become increasingly common among clinical trial teams in recent years. However, limited published research focused on the status of turnover intention in CRCs. We invited all the 220 CRCs currently working at Hunan Cancer Hospital located in Changsha city in the central south of China from March to June 2018. Participants were asked to complete structured questionnaires regarding basic demographic information, job burnout, professional identity and turnover intention. A total of 202 participants were included in this study, with a response rate of 91.82%. The main reason for turnover intention among CRCs was human resources, followed by communications, management and material resources (per item score in each dimension: 2.14 vs. 2.43 vs. 2.65 vs. 2.83). All the correlations among job burnout, professional identity and turnover intention were statistically significant, with coefficients ranging from −0.197 to 0.615. Multiple liner regression analysis showed that older age, longer workhours per week, and lower level of professional identity were associated with the prevalence of turnover intention among CRCs. Besides, the association between job burnout and turnover intention was fully mediated by professional identity. This study revealed the status and causes of turnover intention among Chinese CRCs. Effective measures on decreasing working time and improving professional identity should be taken in order to reduce CRCs’ turnover intention.

Community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2) and support to rural India’s public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2): an update to the study protocol (v 11) for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India

BackgroundThis update outlines amendments to the CHAMPION2/STRIPES2 cluster randomised trial protocol primarily made due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown in India in 2020. These amendments were in line with national guidelines for health research during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe did not change the original trial design, eligibility, and outcomes. Amendments were introduced to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission and ensure safety and wellbeing of trial staff, participants, and other villagers. CHAMPION2 intervention: participatory learning and action (PLA) and fixed day service (FDS) meeting were revised to incorporate social distancing and hygiene precautions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PLA participation was limited to pregnant women and birthing partners. STRIPES2 intervention: before/after-school classes were halted for a period and then modified temporarily (reducing class sizes, and/or changing meeting places) with hygiene and safe distancing practices introduced. Data collection: The research team gathered as much information as possible from participants by telephone. If the participant had no telephone or could not be contacted by telephone, data were collected in person. COVID-19 precautions: trial teams were trained on COVID-19 precautions and used personal protective equipment whilst in the villages for trial-related activities.After restarting the trial between June and September 2020 in a phased manner, some trial activities were suspended again in all the trial villages from April to June 2021 due to the second wave of COVID-19 cases and lockdown imposed in Satna, Madhya Pradesh. Trial timelines were also revised, with outcomes measured later than originally planned.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered 23 May 2019.https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MzExOTg=&Enc=&userName=champion2.

NURS-15. THE ROLE OF THE ADVANCED PRACTICE PROVIDER AND NURSES IN CLINICAL TRIALS

Abstract BACKGROUND For many years clinical trials fell under the umbrella of medicine without much acknowledgement to the role of the nurse, both as advanced practice provider (APP) and staff nurse. Oncology continues to rank as one of the highest subspecialties when it comes to availability and participation in clinical trials. There remain multiple barriers to involvement including availability, lack of education, and medical mistrust. The specialized role and skill set of the APP and RN as part of the clinical trial team is important in overcoming these barriers. METHODS We distributed a survey to members of the Advanced Practice Provider and Nurse Investigator Committee (APPNIC), a group within the Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium (PNOC), in order to identify themes, barriers to care, and opportunities for both the APP and RN within clinical trials. The use of a survey and interviews within our APPNIC cohort allowed us to collaborate on the nursing role, prioritize care in new and amended trials, and share unanticipated adverse effects and effective management. RESULTS APPs are actively involved with clinical trial enrollment, performance of diagnostic exams and procedures, education, and early recognition/management of adverse effects. There is also a growing theme of the APP as sub-investigator which provides value in facilitating consent, impacting accrual, determining eligibility, managing anticipated side effects. The role of the staff nurse in clinical trials is found to be vital in providing consistent communication/support, educating patients and families, and alleviating adherence and medical mistrust. CONCLUSION The APP and nurse have a specialized, relevant skill set, which when included as part of the multi-disciplinary team, has the ability to decrease barriers and increase overall delivery and safety of clinical trials. Our goal is to outline specific roles we feel should be standardized in the international arena for nursing involvement within clinical trials.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols

BackgroundRetaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol.MethodsNinety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate.ResultsPlans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use “combined strategies” to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies).ConclusionRetention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

Establishing a protocol to increase racial/ethnic minority enrollment on an active radiation oncology randomized clinical trial.

TPS1638 Background: In the United States (US), underrepresented racial/ethnic groups lack ample enrollment in clinical trials, yielding ungeneralizable trial results. Barriers to increasing minority enrollment include decreased awareness of clinical trials, lack of access, financial burden and toxicity, medical system mistrust, and discordant physician-patient demographics. The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms (SPORTSMEN) clinical trial (NCT05617716) has a study design to actively accrue minority patients. We present our protocol addressing key targets to increase minority enrollment on this randomized, phase II clinical trial. Methods: Adults with evidence of symptomatic spine metastases are eligible. Baseline demographics (including race/ethnicity) are reported for statistical analysis. Our protocol seeks to minimize barriers to minority enrollment and targets four key areas. Access to care: SPORTSMEN involves institutions located in zip codes with diverse ethnic populations, presently located in regions 46% and 70% African American. Clinical trial design: SPORTSMEN has a prespecified goal of accruing patients to mirror US census representation. The rate of minority enrollment will be reviewed periodically at the discretion of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Community outreach and engagement: The trial team will engage with local health care systems to create an alliance within different oncology specialties to provide the basis and benefit for SPORTSMEN and patient-centered education on eligibility criteria, rationale, and intended outcomes. Our principal focus will be providers in prostate, breast, and lung cancers as minorities with these primary site malignancies have a higher propensity to be trial-eligible. Furthermore, we understand the historical mistrust of minorities for the medical community. Therefore, we will engage local grassroot organizations such as churches, community outreach centers, and social clubs to increase awareness of clinical trials and to help foster trust. Financial burden and toxicity: SPORTSMEN does not have direct enrollment costs. A short-course treatment regimen is used to minimize the number of treatment visits required allowing for decreased resources for travel, time lost at work, and additional childcare or eldercare needs. Financial toxicity will be objectively quantified using the validated COST-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy survey. Increasing clinical trial diversity is a challenge that must be addressed with meaningful intent to present robust Level 1 data that broadens the understanding of treatment response in all demographics. Our protocol takes a patient-centered approach to achieve the objective of concordant racial/ethnic representation in a randomized clinical trial. Clinical trial information: NCT05617716 .

Randomized Trial of a Vascular Care Team vs Education for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

BackgroundUnderutilization of therapies to reduce ischemic risk in peripheral artery disease (PAD) persists. ObjectivesThe purpose was to conduct an implementation trial of lipid management in vascular disease. MethodsThe OPTIMIZE PAD-1 (Implementation of Vascular Care Team to Improve Medical Management of PAD Patients) trial randomized patients with peripheral artery disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dL to management via a vascular care team including a clinical pharmacist and an algorithm of intensive lipid management to achieve goal LDL-C in 1 step vs usual care plus provider education. Medications were obtained using commercial insurance. The primary endpoint was percent change in LDL-C at 12 months. ResultsOf 166 enrolled patients, 74.2% did not have an LDL-C level at goal. Among 114 randomized patients (mean age 66 years, 36.0% women, and 15.8% Black), 50.9% received high-intensity statin, and 7.9% received ezetimibe at baseline. The mean 12-month LDL-C change was −49.1% (95% CI: −58.7% to −39.5%) with vascular care team management and −5.4% (95% CI: −15.3% to 4.6%) with usual care; the between-group least-squares mean difference was −43.7% (95% CI: −57.6% to −29.9%; P < 0.0001). Mean LDL-C was reduced in vascular care team patients from 100.6 mg/dL at baseline to 54.8 and 50.1 mg/dL by week 4 and month 12, respectively. At 12 months, vascular care team patients were >3 times as likely to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL and 8 times as likely to achieve LDL-C <55 mg/dL (P < 0.0001) than usual care. ConclusionsOPTIMIZE PAD-1 showed that an interprofessional, algorithm-based program can achieve rapid LDL-C lowering in vascular patients using available insurance and therapies, and LDL-C targets can be met in most patients if enabled by optimized systems of care.