Search

Background: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. Methods: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. Results: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. Conclusions: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University's Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. Methods: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. Results: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. Conclusions: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit's experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Brief Educational Workshops in Secondary Schools Trial (BESST) is an England-wide school-based cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an open-access psychological workshop programme (DISCOVER) for 16–18-year-olds. This baseline paper describes the self-referral and other recruitment processes used in this study and the baseline characteristics of the enrolled schools and participants. Method: We enrolled 900 participants from 57 Secondary schools across England from 4th October 2021 to 10th November 2022. Schools were randomised to receive either the DISCOVER day-long Stress workshop or treatment as usual which included signposting information. Participants will be followed up for 6 months with outcome data collection at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month post randomisation. Results: Schools were recruited from a geographically and ethnically diverse sample across England. To reduce stigma, students were invited to self-refer into the study if they wanted help for stress. Their mean age was 17.2 (SD = 0.6), 641 (71%) were female and 411 (45.6%) were from ethnic minority groups. The general wellbeing of our sample measured using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) found 314 (35%) of students exhibited symptoms of depression at baseline. Eighty percent of students reported low wellbeing on the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) suggesting that although the overall sample mean is below the cut-off for depression, the self-referral approach used in this study supports distressed students in coming forward. Conclusion: The BESST study will continue to follow up participants to collect outcome data and results will be analysed once all the data have been collected. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN90912799. Registered on 28 May 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overall survival is the "gold standard" endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered. Methods: Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer. Results: One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching). Discussion: Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many research funders have invested billions of US dollars in building research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite these colossal investments, many well-intentioned and designed clinical research projects have either failed to kick off or ended abruptly. Although obstacles to clinical research in SSA are well known, there is limited information on frameworks and tools that can be used to anticipate and avert these systemic bottlenecks, particularly those related to socio-politics. In this paper, we leveraged lessons from entrepreneurs and development experts in harsh and uncertain business environments to develop a framework for anticipating and addressing potential bottlenecks to clinical research in SSA. More so, to illustrate and build a case for this framework, we shared our experience in supporting clinicians and regulators to adopt a point-of-use care tool, the "chemoPAD," to screen for the quality of anticancer medications rapidly and systematically in Cameroon despite resistance from some stakeholders. The critical steps in this framework involve identifying stakeholders, categorizing them based on their potential reactions to the study (adversary, supporters, and indifferents), and developing critical strategies to engage or deal with each stakeholder's reactions, starting with adversaries. This approach may be useful in complex research projects, especially clinical trials, which often involve many stakeholders with different interests and perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The new European Medicines Agency (EMA) Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), based on the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR EU 536/2014), came into full effect on 31 January 2022 and was intended to provide an easier, more streamlined approach to the registration of clinical trials taking place in Europe. Using the experience gained on the new regulatory framework from three multi-national European clinical research studies of outbreak-prone infectious diseases, this article describes the advantages and shortcomings of the new clinical trial submission procedure. Methods: We report the time to approval, size of the application dossier, and number of requests for information (RFIs) for each study. We also explore the experience of each study within the regulatory framework and its use of CTIS to document the real-world, practical consequences of the system on individual studies. The study assesses the experience of three multi-country studies conducted in Europe working within the EU and non-EU regulatory environments. Results: While the time to regulatory and ethical approval has improved since the implementation of the new regulation, the timelines for approvals are still unacceptably slow, particularly for studies being conducted in the context of an evolving outbreak. Within the new regulatory approval procedure, there is evidence of conflicting application requirements, increased document burden, barriers to submitting important modifications, and debilitating technical hurdles. Conclusions: CTIS promised to lower the administrative bar, but unfortunately this has not been achieved. There are challenges that need to be urgently confronted and addressed for international research collaborators to effectively manage health crises in the future. While the value of multi-national outbreak research is clear, the limitations and delays imposed by the system, which raise challenging ethical questions about the regulation, are prejudicial to all clinical research, especially publicly funded academic studies. This report is relevant to both regulators and clinical researchers. It is hoped that these findings can help improve pan-European clinical trials, especially for the purpose of epidemic preparedness and response. Trial registration: This paper references experiences gained during management of three pan-European trials: EU-SolidAct's Bari-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500385-99-00 - 15 March 2022) and AXL-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500363-12-00 - 19 April 2022), and MOSAIC (CT No. 2022-501132-42-00 - 22 June 2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a highly debilitating neurodegenerative condition. Despite recent advancements in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying ALS, there have been no significant improvements in therapeutic options for ALS patients in recent years. Currently, there is no cure for ALS, and the only approved treatment in Europe is riluzole, which has been shown to slow the disease progression and prolong survival by approximately 3 months. Recently, tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) has emerged as a promising and effective treatment for neurodegenerative diseases due to its neuroprotective activities. Methods: The ongoing TUDCA-ALS study is a double-blinded, parallel arms, placebo-controlled, randomized multicenter phase III trial with the aim to assess the efficacy and safety of TUDCA as add-on therapy to riluzole in patients with ALS. The primary outcome measure is the treatment response defined as a minimum of 20% improvement in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) slope during the randomized treatment period (18 months) compared to the lead-in period (3 months). Randomization will be stratified by country. Primary analysis will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle through an unadjusted logistic regression model. Patient recruitment commenced on February 22, 2019, and was closed on December 23, 2021. The database will be locked in September 2023. Discussion: This paper provides a comprehensive description of the statistical analysis plan in order to ensure the reproducibility of the analysis and avoid selective reporting of outcomes and data-driven analysis. Sensitivity analyses have been included in the protocol to assess the impact of intercurrent events related to the coronavirus disease 2019. By focusing on clinically meaningful and robust outcomes, this trial aims to determine whether TUDCA can be effective in slowing the disease progression in patients with ALS. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800524. Registered on January 11, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: 'What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?'. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes. Results: The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors. Conclusions: Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the operationalisation of non-COVID-19 clinical trials globally, particularly site and participant recruitment and trial success/stoppage. Trials which anticipate recruitment challenges may embed methods such as the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to help identify and understand the sources of challenges. Such interventions can help shed light on pandemic-related challenges. This paper reports our experience of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conducting clinical trials with an embedded QRI, highlighting how the QRI aided in identifying challenges and potential solutions, particularly related to the site set-up and participant recruitment. Main body: We report on 13 UK clinical trials which included a QRI. Information is from QRI data and researchers' experience and reflections. In most trials, recruitment was lower than even the lowest anticipated rates. The flexibility of the QRI facilitated rapid data collection to understand and document, and in some instances respond to, operational challenges. Challenges were mostly logistical, pandemic-related and beyond the control of the site or central trial teams. Specifically: disrupted and variable site opening timelines —often due to local research and development (R&D) delays— shortages of staff to recruit patients; fewer eligible patients or limited access to patients; and intervention-related factors. Almost all trials were affected by pandemic-related staffing issues including redeployment, prioritisation of COVID-19 care and research, and COVID-19-related staff illness and absence. Trials of elective procedures were particularly impacted by the pandemic, which caused changes to care/recruitment pathways, deprioritisation of services, reduced clinical and surgical capacity and longer waiting lists. Attempted solutions included extra engagement with staff and R&D departments, trial protocol changes (primarily moving online) and seeking additional resourcing. Conclusion: We have highlighted wide-ranging, extensive and consistent pandemic-related challenges faced by UK clinical trials, which the QRI helped to identify and, in some cases, address. Many challenges were insurmountable at individual trials or trials unit level. This overview highlights the need to streamline trial regulatory processes, address staffing crises, improve recognition of NHS research staff and for clearer, more nuanced central guidance on the prioritisation of studies and how to deal with the backlog. Pre-emptively embedding qualitative work and stakeholder consultation into trials with anticipated difficulties, moving some processes online, and flexible trial protocols may improve the resilience of trials in the current challenging context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 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.Methods: A 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.Results: Prior 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.Conclusions: This 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 Registration: PRINCIPLE 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 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dysarthria after stroke is when speech intelligibility is impaired, and this occurs in half of all stroke survivors. Dysarthria often leads to social isolation, poor psychological well-being and can prevent return to work and social lives. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical research and practice when monitoring recovery for people who have dysarthria. When research studies use different measures, it is impossible to compare results from trials and delays our understanding of effective clinical treatments. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) to agree what aspects of speech recovery should be measured for dysarthria after stroke (COS-Speech) in research and clinical practice. Methods: The COS-Speech study will include five steps: (1) development of a long list of possible outcome domains of speech that should be measured to guide the survey; (2) recruitment to the COS-Speech study of three key stakeholder groups in the UK and Australia: stroke survivors, communication researchers and speech and language therapists/pathologists; (3) two rounds of the Delphi survey process; (4) a consensus meeting to agree the speech outcomes to be measured and a follow-up consensus meeting to match existing instruments/measures (from parallel systematic review) to the agreed COS-Speech; (5) dissemination of COS-Speech. Discussion: There is currently no COS for dysarthria after stroke for research trials or clinical practice. The findings from this research study will be a minimum COS, for use in all dysarthria research studies and clinical practice looking at post-stroke recovery of speech. These findings will be widely disseminated using professional and patient networks, research and clinical forums as well as using a variety of academic papers, videos, accessible writing such as blogs and links on social media. Trial registration: COS-Speech is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, October 2021 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1959. In addition, "A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of instruments measuring dysarthria after stroke" will inform the consensus meeting to match measures to COS-Speech. The protocol for the systematic reviews registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022302998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials. Methods: Reanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety. Results: The efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted. Conclusions: This reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises. Trial registration: This is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI), as one of the most common hospital-acquired infection, is usually associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and health care burden. SSI is a significant perioperative complication after colon cancer surgery, particularly for left-sided colon cancer. This paper describes the background and design of the "Surgical Site Infection after intracorporeal anastomosis for Left-sided Colon Cancer: study protocol for a non-inferiority multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (STARS)." The STARS trial aims to compare the incidence of SSI after intracorporeal anastomosis and extracorporeal anastomosis after radical resection of colon cancer and to explore the risk factors of SSI.Methods: A total of 354 left colon cancer patients from 8 hospitals in China will be enrolled in this multi-center randomized controlled study. The primary outcome of this study is the incidence of SSI 30 days after left-sided colon cancer surgery. Secondary outcome measures include operation time, blood loss, conversion rate, incidence of perioperative complications, completeness of resection, number of lymph nodes collected and postoperative recovery characteristics, 3-year disease-free survival, and 5-year overall survival. The first patient was enrolled in January 2021.Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective multicenter study to investigate whether there is a difference in the SSI incidence after intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for left-sided colon cancer in China. The results may provide more evidence that supports performing total laparoscopic left-sided colon cancer surgery.Trial Registration: The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov website (ID: NCT04201717). Registered on September 22, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of insulin resistance is gaining increasing attention as it plays an important role in carcinogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although exercise is the most important intervention for lowering insulin resistance, it is not easy for HCC patients to maintain high compliance and do appropriate exercise. Mobile health (mHealth) with wearable devices can be the solution to carry out an adjusted and supervised exercise that can normalize insulin resistance in patients with HCC. We developed an HCC-specific application equipped with patient-centered exercise. In this paper, we present a randomized controlled trial protocol comparing an intervention group with a control group to determine whether mHealth-based exercise is effective in normalizing insulin sensitivity in HCC patients with insulin resistance after anticancer treatment.Methods: An assessor unblinded open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted for 80 participants with treatment-naïve or recurrent HCC who have received treatment and achieved complete response at the time of screening. They will be randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two groups: an intervention group (n = 40) and a control group (n = 40). The intervention group will carry out mHealth-based exercise for 6 months from baseline, whereas the control group will receive the usual follow-up care for the first 3 months and mHealth-based exercise for the next 3 months. Both groups will be assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months from baseline. The primary outcome is the normalized rate of insulin resistance in each group at 3 months. Insulin resistance is estimated by calculating homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). The secondary outcomes are body composition, physical fitness level, physical activity, and quality of life at 3 months.Discussion: This study is the first RCT to investigate the effect of mHealth-based home exercise with a wrist-wearable device on insulin sensitivity, physical fitness, and quality of life for HCC patients with insulin resistance. The result of this RCT will confirm not only safety and functional improvement but also biological effect when exercising using mHealth in HCC patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04649671 . Registered on 2 December 2020. The World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set is not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in severe interruptions to clinical research worldwide. This global public health crisis required investigators and researchers to rapidly develop and implement new strategies and solutions to mitigate its negative impact on the progress of clinical trials. In this paper, we describe the challenges, strategies, and lessons learned regarding the continuation of a supportive oncology clinical trial during the pandemic. We hope to provide insight into the implementation of clinical trials during a public health emergency to be better prepared for future instances.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the US National Institute of Health (NCT03030859). Registered on 22 January 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the conduct of clinical trials through delay, interruption or cancellation. Decentralised methods in clinical trials could help to continue trials during a pandemic. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study conducted early in the pandemic to gain insight into and describe the experiences of organisations involved in clinical trials, with regard to the impact of COVID-19 on the conduct of trials, and the adoption of decentralised methods prior to, and as mitigation for the impact, of COVID-19.Methods: A survey with 11 open-ended and four multiple choice questions was conducted in June 2020 among member organisations of the public-private "Trials@Home" consortium. The survey investigated (1) the impact and challenges of COVID-19 on the continuation of ongoing clinical trials, (2) the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials prior to and as a mitigation strategy for COVID-19, (3) the challenges of conducting clinical trials during COVID-19, (4) the expected permanency of COVID-19-driven changes to the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials, and (5) lessons learned from conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. A thematic, inductive analysis of open survey questions was performed, complemented with descriptive statistics (frequencies and distributions).Results: The survey had a response rate of 81%. All organisations included in the analysis (n = 18) implemented (some) decentralised methods in their clinical trials prior to COVID-19, and 15 (83%) implemented decentralised methods as mitigation for COVID-19. Decentralised methods for IMP supply, patient-health care provider interaction and communication, clinic visits and source document verification were used more often as mitigation strategies than they were used prior to COVID-19. Many respondents expect to maintain those decentralised methods they implemented during COVID-19 in ongoing trials, as well as implement them in future trials.Conclusions: Decentralised methods are a widely implemented mitigation strategy for trial conduct in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey show that there is an interest to continue the use of decentralised methods in future trials, but important points of attention have been identified that need solutions to help guide the transition from the traditional trial model to a more decentralised trial model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Academic-sponsored trials for rare diseases face many challenges; the present paper identifies hurdles in the set-up of six multinational clinical trials for drug repurposing, as use cases.Methods: Six academic-sponsored multinational trials aiming to generate knowledge on rare diseases drug repurposing were used as examples to identify problems in their set-up. Coordinating investigators leading these trials provided feedback on hurdles linked to study, country, and site set up, on the basis of pre-identified categories established through the analysis of previous peer-reviewed publications.Results: Administrative burden and lack of harmonization for trial-site agreements were deemed as a major hurdle. Other main identified obstacles included the following: (1) complexity and restriction on the use of public funding, especially in a multinational set up, (2) drug supply, including procurement tendering rules and country-specific requirements for drug stability, and (3) lack of harmonization on regulatory requirements to get trial approvals.Conclusion: A better knowledge of the non-commercial clinical research landscape and its challenges and requirements is needed to make drugs-especially those with less commercial gain-accessible to rare diseases patients. Better information about existing resources like research infrastructures, clinical research programs, and counseling mechanisms is needed to support and guide clinicians through the many challenges associated to the set-up of academic-sponsored multinational trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment for randomised controlled trials in palliative care can be challenging; disease progression and terminal illness underpin high rates of attrition. Research into participant decision-making in medicinal cannabis randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is very limited. Nesting qualitative sub-studies within RCTs can identify further challenges to participation, informing revisions to study designs and recruitment practices. This paper reports on findings from a qualitative sub-study supporting RCTs of medicinal cannabis for symptom burden relief in patients with advanced cancer in one Australian city.Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 patients with advanced cancer, eligible to participate in a medicinal cannabis RCT (n=28 who consented to participate in an RCT; n=20 who declined). An iterative and abductive approach to thematic analysis and data collection fostered exploration of barriers and enablers to participation.Results: Key enablers included participants' enthusiasm and expectations of medicinal cannabis as beneficial (to themselves and future patients) for symptom management, especially after exhausting currently approved options, and a safer alternative to opioids. Some believed medicinal cannabis to have anti-cancer effects. Barriers to participation were the logistical challenges of participating (especially due to driving restrictions and fatigue), reluctance to interfere with an existing care plan, cost, and concerns about receiving the placebo and the uncertainty of the benefit. Some declined due to concerns about side-effects or a desire to continue accessing cannabis independent of the study.Conclusions: The findings support revisions to subsequent medicinal cannabis RCT study designs, namely, omitting a requirement that participants attend weekly hospital appointments. These findings highlight the value of embedding qualitative sub-studies into RCTs. While some challenges to RCT recruitment are universal, others are context (population, intervention, location) specific. A barrier to participation found in research conducted elsewhere-stigma-was not identified in the current study. Thus, findings have important implications for those undertaking RCTs in the rapidly developing context of medical cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues.Main Text: This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.Conclusion: Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of health research and fostered clinical research as never before. A huge number of clinical trials for potential COVID-19 interventions have been launched worldwide. Therefore, the effort of monitoring and characterizing the ongoing research portfolio of COVID-19 clinical trials has become crucial in order to fill evidence gaps that can arise, define research priorities and methodological issues, and eventually, formulate valuable recommendations for investigators and sponsors. The main purpose of the present work was to analyze the landscape of COVID-19 clinical research in Italy, by mapping and describing the characteristics of planned clinical trials investigating the role of drugs and convalescent plasma for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 disease.Methods: During an 11-month period between May 2020 and April 2021, we performed a survey of the Italian COVID-19 clinical trials on therapeutic and prophylactic drugs and convalescent plasma. Clinical trials registered in the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and ClinicalTrials.gov websites were regularly monitored. In the present paper, we report an analysis of study design characteristics and other trial features at 6 April 2021.Results: Ninety-four clinical trials planned to be carried out in Italy were identified. Almost all of them (91%) had a therapeutic purpose; as for the study design, the majority of them adopted a parallel group (74%) and randomized (76%) design. Few of them were blinded (33%). Eight multiarm studies were identified, and two of them were multinational platform trials. Many therapeutic strategies were investigated, mostly following a drug repositioning therapeutic approach.Conclusions: Our study describes the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trials planned to be carried out in Italy over about 1 year of pandemic emergency. High level quality clinical trials were identified, although some weaknesses in study design and replications of experimental interventions were observed, particularly in the early phase of the pandemic. Our findings provide a critical view of the clinical research strategies adopted for COVID-19 in Italy during the early phase of the pandemic. Further actions could include monitoring and follow-up of trial results and publications and focus on non-pharmacological research areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a 'step-down' treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation.Methods: 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m2 and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden.Discussion: The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision.Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN10166784 . Registered 28 February 2020. ISRCTN is a primary registry of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) network and includes all items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), there is a substantial gap in the treatment of mental and behavioral health problems, which is particularly detrimental to adolescents and young adults (AYA). The Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) is an evidence-based, flexible, transdiagnostic intervention delivered by lay counselors to address comorbid mental and behavioral health conditions, though its effectiveness has not yet been tested among AYA. This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial that will test the effectiveness of traditional in-person delivered CETA and a telehealth-adapted version of CETA (T-CETA) in reducing mental and behavioral health problems among AYA in Zambia. Non-inferiority of T-CETA will also be assessed.Methods: This study is a hybrid type 1 three-arm randomized trial to be conducted in Lusaka, Zambia. Following an apprenticeship model, experienced non-professional counselors in Zambia will be trained as CETA trainers using a remote, technology-delivered training method. The new CETA trainers will subsequently facilitate technology-delivered trainings for a new cohort of counselors recruited from community-based partner organizations throughout Lusaka. AYA with mental and behavioral health problems seeking services at these same organizations will then be identified and randomized to (1) in-person CETA delivery, (2) telehealth-delivered CETA (T-CETA), or (3) treatment as usual (TAU). In the superiority design, CETA and T-CETA will be compared to TAU, and using a non-inferiority design, T-CETA will be compared to CETA, which is already evidence-based in other populations. At baseline, post-treatment (approximately 3-4 months post-baseline), and 6 months post-treatment (approximately 9 months post-baseline), we will assess the primary outcomes such as client trauma symptoms, internalizing symptoms, and externalizing behaviors and secondary outcomes such as client substance use, aggression, violence, and health utility. CETA trainer and counselor competency and cost-effectiveness will also be measured as secondary outcomes. Mixed methods interviews will be conducted with trainers, counselors, and AYA participants to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of technology-delivered training and T-CETA provision in the Zambian context.Discussion: Adolescents and young adults in LMIC are a priority population for the treatment of mental and behavioral health problems. Technology-delivered approaches to training and intervention delivery can expand the reach of evidence-based interventions. If found effective, CETA and T-CETA would help address a major barrier to the scale-up and sustainability of mental and behavioral treatments among AYA in LMIC.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03458039 . Prospectively registered on May 10, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials play an important role in expanding the knowledge of diabetes prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, and data management is one of the main issues in clinical trials. Lack of appropriate planning for data management in clinical trials may negatively influence achieving the desired results. The aim of this study was to explore data management processes in diabetes clinical trials in three research institutes in Iran. Method: This was a qualitative study conducted in 2019. In this study, data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 researchers in three endocrinology and metabolism research institutes. To analyze data, the method of thematic analysis was used. Results: The five themes that emerged from data analysis included (1) clinical trial data collection, (2) technologies used in data management, (3) data security and confidentiality management, (4) data quality management, and (5) data management standards. In general, the findings indicated that no clear and standard process was used for data management in diabetes clinical trials, and each research center executed its own methods and processes. Conclusion: According to the results, the common methods of data management in diabetes clinical trials included a set of paper-based processes. It seems that using information technology can help facilitate data management processes in a variety of clinical trials, including diabetes clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is the investigator's responsibility to communicate the relevant information about a clinical trial to participants before they provide informed consent to take part. Systematic reviews indicate that participants often have a poor understanding of the concepts which are key to ensuring valid informed consent, such as randomisation and risks/discomforts. Paper-based participant information leaflets and informed consent forms (PIL/ICFs) are becoming longer and are often too complex for many participants. Multimedia interventions and enhanced PIL/ICFs have been trialled in an attempt to improve participants' understanding of various aspects of research studies. However, there is insufficient empirical evidence to determine how effective such interventions are. This protocol describes a study to evaluate whether an enhanced PIL/ICF and website help research participants to understand important information about a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) randomised clinical trial.Methods: This Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group study embedded in a host clinical trial. The host trial (the SWIFT trial; EudraCT: 2019-002314-39) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, open-label, controlled trial investigating if semaglutide along with dietary advice assists individuals with HIV and obesity to lose weight, compared to dietary advice alone. For the SWAT, participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the control (standard PIL/ICF) or the intervention (an enhanced PIL/ICF and a website which includes animations). The enhanced PIL/ICF and website were developed in line with the guidance from organisations which promote plain English and accessible public-facing materials in conjunction with HIV Ireland, a HIV advocacy organisation, and our previous work on consent documents. The primary outcome of the SWAT is the quality of informed consent, assessed by a validated comprehension test-the modified Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test (DICCT). The DICCT will be administered within 48 h of consent to the host trial. The secondary is recall, measured by the modified DICCT questionnaire scores 2 weeks post-consent to the host trial.Discussion: The results of this SWAT will add to the methodological evidence base on the use of multimedia to improve the quality of informed consent to randomised clinical trials.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04174755 . EudraCT 2019-002314-39. SWAT 160, Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (Clarke M, et al., Trials. 16:P209, 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), global public health infrastructures and systems, along with community-wide collaboration and service, have risen to an unprecedented challenge. Vaccine development was immediately propelled to the centre of all our scientific, public health and community efforts. Despite the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines arguably being the greatest and most palpable achievements of the past 12 months, they have also been one of the most contentious and debated issues during the pandemic. However, what uniquely differentiates vaccine development is its intimate relationship with the community it seeks to serve; both in its clinical trial testing as an efficacious and safe prophylactic, and its post-developmental 'roll-out' success, as an effective public health tool. These relationships have birthed a myriad of complexities, from community-based mistrust, to academically contended ethical dilemmas. Indeed, the accelerated advances in the COVID-19 vaccine race have further exacerbated this phenomenon, bringing with it new ethical dilemmas that need to be examined to ensure the continued clinical success of these therapeutics and a renewed societal trust in clinical medicine.In this paper, we discuss two major ethical dilemmas: (1) the equipoise of continuing new vaccine trials in the advent of successful candidates and (2) the maleficence of blinded placebo arms. Accordingly, we discuss six different potential approaches to these ethical dilemmas: (1) continuing with placebo-controlled trials, (2) transitioning from placebo-controlled to open-label, (3) unblinding at-risk priority groups only, (4) transitioning to a blinded stepped-wedge cross-over design, (5) progressing to a blinded active-controlled stepped-wedge cross-over trial, and (6) conducting randomised stepped-wedge community trials. We also propose a decision-making algorithm for relevant stakeholders in advanced stages of vaccine trials.It is important to remember that the emergent nature of the COVID-19 situation does not justify a compromise on core ethical values. In fact, the discourse surrounding this topic and the decisions made will remain a potent case study and a continuously referenced example for all such future scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014–2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. Results: From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12–17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. Discussion: The PREVAC trial is evaluating—placebo-controlled—two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328. Registered on 23 August 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder is often extensive and resource-intensive. Mentalisation-based therapy is a psychodynamically oriented treatment option for borderline personality disorder, which includes a case formulation, psychoeducation, and group and individual therapy. The evidence on short-term compared with long-term mentalisation-based therapy is currently unknown.Methods/design: The Short-Term MBT Project (MBT-RCT) is a single-centre, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, randomised clinical superiority trial in which short-term (20 weeks) will be compared with long-term (14 months) mentalisation-based therapy for outpatients with subthreshold or diagnosed borderline personality disorder. Outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians, and decision-makers will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be assessed before randomisation and at 8, 16, and 24 months after randomisation. The primary outcome will be the severity of borderline symptomatology assessed with the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. Secondary outcomes will be functional impairment (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey 36-mental component), global functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning), and proportion of participants with severe self-harm. In this paper, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan including a comprehensive explanation of the planned statistical analyses, methods to handle missing data, and assessments of the underlying statistical assumptions. Final statistical analyses will be conducted independently by two statisticians following the present plan.Discussion: We have developed this statistical analysis plan before unblinding of the trial results in line with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization of Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, which should increase the validity of the MBT-RCT trial by mitigation of analysis bias.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03677037 . Registered on 19 September 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to carry a high burden of communicable diseases such as TB and HIV and non-communicable diseases such as hypertension and other cardiovascular conditions. Although investment in research has led to advances in improvements in outcomes, a lot still remains to be done to build research capacity in health. Like many other regions in the world, Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a critical shortage of biostatisticians and clinical trial methodologists.Methods: Funded through a Fogarty Global Health Training Program grant, the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Stellenbosch University in South Africa established a new Masters Program in Biostatistics which was launched in January 2017. In this paper, we describe the development of a biostatistical and clinical trials collaboration Module, adapted from a similar course offered in the Health Research Methodology program at McMaster University.Discussion: Guided by three core principles (experiential learning; multi-/inter-disciplinary approach; and formal mentorship), the Module aims to advance biostatistical collaboration skills of the trainees by facilitating learning in how to systematically apply fundamental statistical and trial methodological knowledge in practice while strengthening some soft skills which are necessary for effective collaborations with other healthcare researchers to solve health problems. We also share some preliminary findings from the first four cohorts that took the Module in January-November 2018 to 2021. We expect that this Module can provide an example of how to improve biostatistical and clinical trial collaborations and accelerate research capacity building in low-resource settings.Funding Source: Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]