Trial Team Research Articles

How are progression decisions made following external randomised pilot trials? A qualitative interview study and framework analysis

BackgroundExternal randomised pilot trials help researchers decide whether, and how, to do a future definitive randomised trial. The progression criteria are often prespecified to inform the interpretation of pilot trial findings and subsequent progression decision-making. We aimed to explore and understand the perspectives and experiences of key stakeholders when making progression decisions following external pilot trials.MethodsThirty-five remote semi-structured interviews with external randomised pilot trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, statisticians and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives. Questions focussed on experiences and perceptions of pilot trial progression decisions and whether and how progression criteria informed this decision. Data were analysed using the framework method approach to thematic analysis. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and rigour were used.ResultsInterviews were conducted between December 2020 and July 2021. Six descriptive themes were developed to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants. These were (1) divided opinions on the value and development of progression criteria, (2) (avoiding) the potential for personal interest to influence progression criteria and progression decision-making, (3) stakeholder engagement in setting progression criteria and making progression decisions, (4) lessons learned from doing the pilot trial and their impact on progression criteria applicability, (5) other factors that inform the progression decision and (6) progression of external randomised pilot trials—funding considerations and constraints. These themes were underpinned by an overarching interpretative theme ‘a one-size approach to progression does not fit all’ to describe the highly nuanced and complex decision-making process that occurs following external randomised pilot trials. The progression criteria are rarely the only consideration informing the decision to progress to future research; unanticipated events, signals of efficacy and continuity of the research team are other factors that researchers consider.ConclusionsOne size does not fit all when it comes to the progression criteria and pilot trial progression. The progression criteria are only one of many considerations researchers have when deciding whether a pilot trial is feasible. External pilot trial progression is not guaranteed even when a pilot trial is considered feasible (based on the progression criteria and/or other considerations), indicating inefficiency and potential research waste.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/5N2KZ

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Development and evaluation of rapid data-enabled access to routine clinical information to enhance early recruitment to the national clinical platform trial of COVID-19 community treatments

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment.This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24–48 h of their test result.MethodsA multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24–48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology.ResultsPrior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020.Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached.ConclusionsThis paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness.This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions.Trial registrationPRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research.EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22. 26/03/2020ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580. 20/03/2020REC number: 20/SC/058IRAS number: 281958

Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi

BackgroundThere have been notable investments in large multi-partner research programmes across the agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) nexus. These studies often involve human participants and commonly require research ethics review. These ANH studies are complex and can raise ethical issues that need pre-field work, ethical oversight and also need an embedded process that can identify, characterise and manage ethical issues as the research work develops, as such more embedded and dynamic ethics processes are needed. This work builds on notions of ‘ethics in practice’ by developing an approach to facilitate ethical reflection within large research programmes. This study explores the application of a novel ‘real-time research ethics approach’ (RTREA) and how this can support ethical mindfulness. This involves embedding ethical analysis and decision-making within research implementation, with a continuous dialogue between participants and researchers. The aim is to improve ethical responsiveness and participant experience, which in turn may ethically support adherence and retention. In this case study, a bioethics team (BT) was embedded in a community-based randomised, controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi, titled the ‘Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy’. To identify ethical issues, the researchers conducted ten focus group discussions, fourteen in-depth interviews with key informants, two workshops, observed two sensitisation and three activity meetings conducted by the trial team, and analysed fifteen reports from pre-trial to trial implementation.ResultsThe RTREA facilitated the identification of social and ethical concerns and made researchers aware of participants’ ‘lived research experience’. To address concerns and experiences, the BT worked with researchers to facilitate conversation spaces where social and ethical issues were discussed. Conversation spaces were designed to create partnerships and promote participatory methods to capture trial participants’ (TPs) perspectives and experiences.ConclusionsThe use of RTREA showed the value of real-time and continuous engagement between TPs and researchers. These real-time processes could be embedded to complement traditional ethical guidance and expert opinions. A deeper engagement appeared to support greater operationalising of principles of inclusion, empowerment, and participant autonomy and supported researchers ‘ethical mindfulness’ which in turn may support instrumental outcomes of high recruitment, retention, and adherence levels.

Abstract IA-53: A multi-pronged approach to driving diversity in clinical trials: Bristol Myers Squibb & Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation efforts

Abstract Achieving diversity in clinical trials that reflects the epidemiology of the people and populations affected by diseases and conditions requires an integrated multi-pronged, multi-sector approach and one that is community-informed. This includes among other components community outreach and engagement, patient voice in study design, a culturally competent workforce of clinical trial investigators and team members who are committed to serving URM, and locating clinical trial sites in heavily diverse communities. Bristol Myers Squibb is taking steps and the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation is making important philanthropic investments on these fronts to drive diversity in clinical trials. The presentation will provide an overview of these efforts, their specific interventions and lessons learned. Citation Format: Patricia M. Doykos. A multi-pronged approach to driving diversity in clinical trials: Bristol Myers Squibb & Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation efforts [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr IA-53.

Development of Written Materials for Participants in an Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Screening Trial.

Given that participants’ experiences in clinical trials include a variety of communication touchpoints with clinical trial staff, these communications should be designed in a way that enhances the participant experience by paying attention to the self-determination theoretical concepts of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In this feature, we argue that clinical trial teams need to consider the importance of how they design their written participant communication materials, and we explain in detail the process our multidisciplinary team took to design written materials for the patient and family caregiver participants in our Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) screening trial. This article concludes with suggested guidance and steps for other clinical trial teams.

The Successful Synchronized Orchestration of an Investigator-Initiated Multicenter Trial Using a Clinical Trial Management System and Team Approach: Design and Utility Study

BackgroundAs the cost of clinical trials continues to rise, novel approaches are required to ensure ethical allocation of resources. Multisite trials have been increasingly utilized in phase 1 trials for rare diseases and in phase 2 and 3 trials to meet accrual needs. The benefits of multisite trials include easier patient recruitment, expanded generalizability, and more robust statistical analyses. However, there are several problems more likely to arise in multisite trials, including accrual inequality, protocol nonadherence, data entry mistakes, and data integration difficulties.ObjectiveThe Biostatistics & Data Science department at the University of Kansas Medical Center developed a clinical trial management system (comprehensive research information system [CRIS]) specifically designed to streamline multisite clinical trial management.MethodsA National Institute of Child Health and Human Development–funded phase 3 trial, the ADORE (assessment of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] on reducing early preterm birth) trial fully utilized CRIS to provide automated accrual reports, centralize data capture, automate trial completion reports, and streamline data harmonization.ResultsUsing the ADORE trial as an example, we describe the utility of CRIS in database design, regulatory compliance, training standardization, study management, and automated reporting. Our goal is to continue to build a CRIS through use in subsequent multisite trials. Reports generated to suit the needs of future studies will be available as templates.ConclusionsThe implementation of similar tools and systems could provide significant cost-saving and operational benefit to multisite trials.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02626299; https://tinyurl.com/j6erphcj

Examining study participants\u2019 decision-making and ethics-related experiences in a dietary community randomized controlled trial in Malawi

BackgroundThe participant recruitment process is a key ethical pivot point when conducting robust research. There is a need to continuously review and improve recruitment processes in research trials and to build fair and effective partnerships between researchers and participants as an important core element in ensuring the ethical delivery of high-quality research. When participants make a fair, informed, and voluntary decision to enroll in a study, they agree to fulfill their roles. However, supporting study participants to fulfill study requirements is an important ethical obligation for researchers, yet evidenced as challenging to achieve. This paper reports on participants’ motivations to volunteer and remain part of a dietary study conducted in Kasungu District, Malawi.MethodsWe conducted twenty in-depth interviews (with chiefs, religious leaders, trial participants, and health surveillance assistants), five systematic ethnographic observations, and fourteen focus group discussions with trial participants and their partners. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a grounded theory methodology to analyse data that included coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation.FindingsThe findings reveal that many participants had concerns during the trial. Thematically, experiences included anxieties, mistrust of researchers, rumours, fears of exploitation, and misconceptions. Anonymous concerns collected from the participants were reported to the trial team which enabled the researchers to appropriately support participants. Despite initial concerns, participants described being supported and expressed motivation to take up their role.ConclusionThese findings highlight a diverse map of multiple notions of what is ethically relevant and what can impact participation and retention within a study. The study has revealed how embedding a responsive approach to address participants’ concerns and ethical issues can support trust relationships. We argue for the need to employ embedded ethics strategies that enhance informed consent, focus on participants’ needs and positive experiences, and support researchers to fulfill their roles. This work highlights the need for research ethics committees to focus on the risks of undue influence and prevent exploitation especially in settings with a high asymmetry in resources and power between researcher and participant groups.Trial Registration: The Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy (Malawi) trial was registered on 5th March 2019 (ISCRTN85899451).

Extent, Type and Reasons for Adaptation and Modification When Scaling-Up an Effective Physical Activity Program: Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1).

Background: Few studies have described the extent, type and reasons for making changes to a program prior to and during its delivery using a consistent taxonomy. Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) is a secondary school physical activity program that was scaled-up for delivery to a greater number of schools. We aimed to describe the extent, type and reasons for changes to the PA4E1 program (the evidence-based physical activity practices, implementation support strategies and evaluation methods) made before its delivery at scale (adaptations) and during its delivery in a scale-up trial (modifications). Methods: The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) was used to describe adaptations (planned and made prior to the scale-up trial) and modifications (made during the conduct of the trial). A list of adaptations was generated from a comparison of the efficacy and scale-up trials via published PA4E1 protocols, trial registrations and information provided by trial investigators. Monthly trial team meetings tracked and coded modifications in "real-time" during the conduct of the scale-up trial. The extent, type and reasons for both adaptations and modifications were summarized descriptively. Results: In total, 20 adaptations and 20 modifications were identified, these were to physical activity practices (n = 8; n = 3), implementation support strategies (n = 6; n = 16) and evaluation methods (n = 6, n = 1), respectively. Few adaptations were "fidelity inconsistent" (n = 2), made "unsystematically" (n = 1) and proposed to have a "negative" impact on the effectiveness of the program (n = 1). Reasons for the adaptations varied. Of the 20 modifications, all were "fidelity consistent" and the majority were made "proactively" (n = 12), though most were "unsystematic" (n = 18). Fifteen of the modifications were thought to have a "positive" impact on program effectiveness. The main reason for modification was the "available resources" (n = 14) of the PA4E1 Implementation Team. Conclusions: Adaptations and modifications to public health programs are common. Modifications have the potential to impact the implementation and effectiveness of programs. Our findings underscore the importance of comprehensive reporting of the extent, type and reasons for modifications as part of process evaluations, as this data may be important to the interpretation of trial findings. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372870, Identifier ACTRN12617000681358.

The Development and Approach of the Appeal Trial Mechanism of China’s Intellectual Property Cases : Centering on the Establishment of a Modern Intellectual Property Appellate Court

The establishment of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court is the beginning of China’s formal establishment of a national-level intellectual property appeal hearing mechanism; however, this is only a trial and not a final judicial system reform, and future development and approaches need to be further explored. From an international perspective, the establishment of an intellectual property appeal court has become an international trend and consensus; in the local thinking, the establishment of an intellectual property appeal court is more conducive to the realization of the goal of building a large judicial system of intellectual property than the existing mechanism, and it does not hinder the maintenance of public welfare and self-interest. Finally, the innovation of the intellectual property appeal hearing mechanism is far from insufficient only by the establishment of specialized courts. In the evolution of modernization, it also needs to be equipped with corresponding judicial system and trial team, so as to essentially form the centralized and professional judicial effect of intellectual property appeal trial to improve trial efficiency and unify judgment standards.

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial

BackgroundRecent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19.MethodsThis placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing.FindingsThe study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18–102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52–0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53–0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21–0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36–1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups.InterpretationTreatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital.FundingFastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation.TranslationFor the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators

BackgroundWhile patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)’s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU’s role in PPI.MethodsA mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.Results(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10–50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.ConclusionsWhile highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.MethodsA qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients’ and health care professionals’ experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.ResultsIn total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients’ discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients’ a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians’ a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.ConclusionThe marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Embedding mentoring to support trial processes and implementation fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of vocational rehabilitation for stroke survivors

BackgroundLittle guidance exists regarding how best to upskill and support those delivering complex healthcare interventions to ensure robust trial outcomes and implementation fidelity. Mentoring was provided to occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a complex vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention to stroke survivors. This study aimed to explore mentors’ roles in supporting OTs with intervention delivery and fidelity, and to describe factors affecting the mentoring process and intervention delivery.MethodsQuantitative data (duration, mode and total time of mentoring support) was extracted from mentoring records and emails between mentors and OTs, alongside qualitative data on barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Semi-structured interviews with mentors (n = 6) and OTs (n = 19) explored experiences and perceptions of intervention training, delivery and the mentoring process. Mean total and monthly time spent mentoring were calculated per trial site. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.ResultsForty-one OTs across 16 sites were mentored between March 2018 and April 2020. Most mentoring was provided by phone or Microsoft Teams (range: 88.6–100%), with the remainder via email and SMS (Short Message Service) text messages. Mentors suggested strategies to enhance trial recruitment, improved OTs’ understanding of- and adherence to trial processes, intervention delivery and fidelity, and facilitated independent problem-solving. Barriers to mentoring included OT non-attendance at mentoring sessions and mentors struggling to balance mentoring with clinical roles. Facilitators included support from the trial team and mentors having protected time for mentoring.ConclusionsMentoring supported mentee OTs in various ways, but it remains unclear to what extent the OTS would have been able to deliver the intervention without mentoring support, or how this might have impacted fidelity. Successful implementation of mentoring alongside new complex interventions may increase the likelihood of intervention effectiveness being observed and sustained in real-life contexts. Further research is needed to investigate how mentors could be selected, upskilled, funded and mentoring provided to maximise impact. The clinical- and cost-effectiveness of mentoring as an implementation strategy and its impact on fidelity also requires testing in a future trial.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275. Registered on 13th March 2018.

MP50-16 NEUROSAFE PROOF: A MULTI-CENTRE, PRAGMATIC, RCT FOR MEN UNDERGOING ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. UPDATE ON A TRIAL IN PROGRESS

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy III (MP50)1 Sep 2021MP50-16 NEUROSAFE PROOF: A MULTI-CENTRE, PRAGMATIC, RCT FOR MEN UNDERGOING ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. UPDATE ON A TRIAL IN PROGRESS Eoin Dinneen, Jacques Grierson, Rosemary Clow, Aiman Haider, Alex Freeman, Clare Allen, NeuroSAFE PROOF Trial Team, and Greg Shaw Eoin DinneenEoin Dinneen More articles by this author , Jacques GriersonJacques Grierson More articles by this author , Rosemary ClowRosemary Clow More articles by this author , Aiman HaiderAiman Haider More articles by this author , Alex FreemanAlex Freeman More articles by this author , Clare AllenClare Allen More articles by this author , NeuroSAFE PROOF Trial Team More articles by this author , and Greg ShawGreg Shaw More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002076.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is an effective cure for organ confined prostate cancer but is associated with considerable post-operative functional toxicity. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section analysis of the neurovascular structure adjacent margin) may help improve functional outcomes by promoting safe nerve-sparing (NS) RARP without compromising on oncological outcomes. NeuroSAFE technique has reported favourably in retrospective, single-centre studies but has never been evaluated prospectively by a randomised study. The NeuroSAFE PROOF Feasibility Study has succeeded in demonstrating feasibility and has facilitated opening of the full-scale, definitively powered NeuroSAFE Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (NCT03317990). We report on the design and progress of the full NeuroSAFE PROOF RCT. METHODS: Potent men (IIEF-5>21) with localised prostate cancer at 4 regional uro-oncology centres in the UK (UCLH, Bristol, Sheffield and Glasgow) are eligible. Participants are randomised 1:1 to RARP with NS decision guided by standard of care (clinical information, DRE and pre-operative mpMRI surgical plan) vs. RARP with NS decision guided by standard of care information and the NeuroSAFE technique. The primary outcome is erectile function recovery assessed by IIEF-5 score >15 at 12-months. Important secondary outcomes include detailed peri-operative outcomes, histological outcomes, post-operative complications, biochemical recurrence rates, urinary continence (assessed by ICIQ), and health related quality of life (assessed by Rand-36 and EQ-5D-5L). Aiming to demonstrate a difference of 15% in erectile function recovery rates between the arms, a total of 404 men will need to be randomised and treated. Patients will continue to be followed for outcomes until 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: At the time of writing, 159 men have been recruited and treated with RARP as per random allocation at the 4 participating sites. The independent DMC has met thrice to ensure the oncological safety of the trial and will continue to review the data at intervals. Covid-19 has led to significant challenges, including suspension of recruitment and difficulties performing follow-up. The trial team have developed new methods of recruitment, consent and follow-up to ensure conduct of the study remains in line with the highest standards of trial conduct. CONCLUSIONS: The NeuroSAFE technique has been reported as a method to optimise outcomes for men undergoing RARP for over a decade, but, in the absence of level 1 evidence, equipoise remains. We hope that our full trial (the first RCT of the NeuroSAFE technique in the world) will provide the evidence to establish whether what has long been a promising technique truly improves outcomes for men undergoing RP. Source of Funding: NeuroSAFE PROOF is funded by the JP Moulton Charitable Foundation © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e892-e893 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Eoin Dinneen More articles by this author Jacques Grierson More articles by this author Rosemary Clow More articles by this author Aiman Haider More articles by this author Alex Freeman More articles by this author Clare Allen More articles by this author NeuroSAFE PROOF Trial Team More articles by this author Greg Shaw More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Making large-scale surgical trials possible: collaboration and the role of surgical trainees

BackgroundRecruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of—and roles undertaken by—surgical trainees.ResultsInterviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme.ConclusionSurgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders.

Supporting the development of the research and clinical trials therapeutic radiographers workforce: The RaCTTR survey

IntroductionThe Research and Clinical Trials Therapeutic Radiographers network is a College of Radiographers Specialist Interest Group. It was established to develop and facilitate a support network for therapeutic radiographers working in roles which involve the delivery of radiotherapy clinical trials. Its establishment highlighted the challenges faced by therapeutic radiographers employed in these roles. Consequently, the authors sought to formally capture the working landscape of this subsection of the radiographic workforce, aiming to ascertain any potential barriers to professional development and the increase of clinical trials activity by 15% mandated by NHS England. MethodsA Qualtrics survey was designed, pilot tested and distributed to the sixty-two radiotherapy departments across England and the devolved nations. Departments were questioned on the size, structure and the scope of practice of their radiotherapy research and clinical trials team members. FindingsThirty-nine complete responses were received, providing a response rate of 62%, with each region of the UK represented in the survey. The findings demonstrated issues related to the number of posts affecting capacity, contract status jeopardising the security and effectiveness of their role and the activities specific to research and clinical trials being ‘bolted on’ to existing roles. Although advanced practice was being undertaken by around a third of this workforce the findings established several barriers including individual/teams' capacity and a perceived lack of support for therapeutic radiographers to progress in clinical trials roles. ConclusionThe findings illustrate several important implications which if not addressed may not only hinder UK radiotherapy departments to achieve the national increase of 15% of clinical trial activity over the next three years but also restrict the growth in size and scope of professional practice of the workforce. Implications for practiceThe research and clinical trials workforce need to adopt a collaborative approach to profile raising and establish a standardised professional scope of practice to support growth and recognition of their role.

Challenges and opportunities for conducting a vaccine trial during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems worldwide. It has also stimulated research in a wide range of areas including rapid diagnostics, novel therapeutics, use of technology to track patients and vaccine development. Here, we describe our experience of rapidly setting up and delivering a novel COVID-19 vaccine trial, using clinical and research staff and facilities in three National Health Service Trusts in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. We encountered and overcame a number of challenges including differences in organisational structures, research facilities available, staff experience and skills, information technology and communications infrastructure, and research training and assessment procedures. We overcame these by setting up a project team that included key members from all three organisations that met at least daily by teleconference. This group together worked to identify the best practices and procedures and to harmonise and cascade these to the wider trial team. This enabled us to set up the trial within 25 days and to recruit and vaccinate the participants within a further 23 days. The lessons learned from our experiences could be used to inform the conduct of clinical trials during a future infectious disease pandemic or public health emergency.

Strategies for Successful Clinical Trial Recruitment of People Living with HIV in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Lessons Learned and Implementation Implications from the Nigeria Renal Risk Reduction (R3) Trial.

Clinical trials represent a bedrock for measuring efficacy of interventions in biomedical research, but recruitment into clinical trials remains a challenge. Few data have focused on recruitment strategies from the perspective of clinical trial teams, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where HIV is most prevalent. We summarized data from the literature and our experience with recruitment for the Renal Risk Reduction trial, aimed at reducing risk of kidney complications among people living with HIV in Nigeria. Using an implementation science framework, we identified strategies that contributed to successful clinical trial recruitment. For strategies that could not be categorized by this framework, we summarized key features according to selected action, actor, target, context, and time. We identified how these identified strategies could map to subsequent implementation outcomes at the patient and provider/health system level, as well as capacity-building efforts to meet needs identified by LMIC partners, which is a priority for success. Our experience highlights the importance of considering implementation outcomes, and the strategies necessary to achieve those outcomes early, in the planning and execution of clinical trials. Clinical trial recruitment can be optimized via methodologies grounded in implementation science.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review

BackgroundThere is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.MethodsA scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.ResultsThirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.ConclusionsThis scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access

BackgroundRoutinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.MethodsThis is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams’ application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).ResultsThe Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.ConclusionsOur experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.