Search

Background: Interest in and use of electronic consent (e-consent) in the conduct of academic clinical trials has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. E-consent offers advantages including increased efficiency and accessibility, and reduced burden on site staff, which can be appealing to academic trialists anticipating challenges in recruitment to complex trial designs or with limited funding. However, there are many options to consider when using e-consent in a study protocol. This paper presents five case studies from Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, demonstrating how e-consent models can be effectively tailored to the needs of different trials. These examples illustrate the options around and benefits of e-consent, the acceptability of e-consent by participants, and the design considerations that were made during the development of the trial protocols. Case studies: Five randomised trials are presented, selected from a range of different trial designs, disease areas, interventions, and patient populations. E-consent was either offered as an alternative to paper consent, according to participant preference, or as the sole method of consent. E-consent was generally used to facilitate remote consent in decentralised trials but was also chosen to increase efficiency and reduce burden in an emergency department setting. The technical implementation of e-consent and detailed participant procedures were tailored to the needs of the trial settings and patient populations. For example, accompanying participant information sheets were provided in paper or electronic form, and electronic signatures could be typed or drawn. Administrative data on uptake of e-consent is presented where available. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates that the operational and technical aspects of implementing e-consent in clinical trials can be influenced by the trial design, the needs and characteristics of the trial population, financial/efficiency considerations, and level of risk. E-consent is not a one-size-fits-all tool for trials, and its use should be carefully considered during the development of the trial protocol, in conjunction with patient and public involvement contributors, site staff and other trial stakeholders. [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]

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: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A number of studies indicate a link between cannabis-use and psychosis as well as more severe psychosis in those with existing psychotic disorders. There is currently insufficient evidence to decide the optimal way to treat cannabis abuse among patients with psychosis. Objectives: The major objective for the CapOpus trial is to evaluate the additional effect on cannabis abuse of a specialized addiction treatment program adding group treatment and motivational interviewing to treatment as usual. Design: The trial is designed as a randomized, parallel-group, observer-blinded clinical trial. Patients are primarily recruited through early-psychosis detection teams, community mental health centers, and assertive community treatment teams. Patients are randomized to one of two treatment arms, both lasting six months: 1) specialized addiction treatment plus treatment as usual or 2) treatment as usual. The specialized addiction treatment is manualized and consists of both individual and group-based motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy, and incorporates both the family and the case manager of the patient. The primary outcome measure will be changes in amount of cannabis consumption over time. Other outcome measures will be psychosis symptoms, cognitive functioning, quality of life, social functioning, and cost-benefit analyses. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00484302. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review was to establish the frequency with which trials take into account missingness, and to discover what methods trialists use for adjustment in randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements. Failing to address the problems that can arise from missing outcome data can result in misleading conclusions. Missing data should be addressed as a means of a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. One hundred publications of randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements were selected randomly from trial publications from the years 2005 to 2012. Information was extracted from these trials, including whether reasons for dropout were reported, what methods were used for handing the missing data, whether there was any explanation of the methods for missing data handling, and whether a statistician was involved in the analysis. The main focus of the review was on missing data post dropout rather than missing interim data. Of all the papers in the study, 9 (9%) had no missing data. More than half of the papers included in the study failed to make any attempt to explain the reasons for their choice of missing data handling method. Of the papers with clear missing data handling methods, 44 papers (50%) used adequate methods of missing data handling, whereas 30 (34%) of the papers used missing data methods which may not have been appropriate. In the remaining 17 papers (19%), it was difficult to assess the validity of the methods used. An imputation method was used in 18 papers (20%) to address the problems caused by missingness. Multiple imputation methods were introduced in 1987 and are an efficient way of accounting for missing data in general, and yet only 4 papers used these methods. All these 4 papers were published in the past four years. Out of the 18 papers which used imputation, only 7 displayed the results as a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. 61% of the papers that used an imputation explained the reasons for their chosen method. Just under a third of the papers made no reference to reasons for missing outcome data. There was little consistency in reporting of missing data within longitudinal trials; some papers provided great detail about the missing data, while others made no reference to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.Methods: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.Results: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).Conclusions: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neurological injuries remain the leading cause of death in comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Adequate blood pressure is of paramount importance to optimize cerebral perfusion and to minimize secondary brain injury. Markers measuring global cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic variations after successful resuscitation are needed to assist a more individualized post-resuscitation care. Currently, no technique is available for bedside evaluation of global cerebral energy state, and until now blood pressure targets have been based on limited clinical evidence. Recent experimental and clinical studies indicate that it might be possible to evaluate cerebral oxidative metabolism from measuring the lactate-to-pyruvate (LP) ratio of the draining venous blood. In this study, jugular bulb microdialysis and immediate bedside biochemical analysis are introduced as new diagnostic tools to evaluate the effect of higher mean arterial blood pressure on global cerebral metabolism and the degree of cellular damage after OHCA.Methods/design: This is a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, superiority trial. Sixty unconscious patients with sustained return of spontaneous circulation after OHCA will be randomly assigned in a one-to-one fashion to low (63 mm Hg) or high (77 mm Hg) mean arterial blood pressure target. The primary end-point will be a difference in mean LP ratio within 48 h between blood pressure groups. Secondary end-points are (1) association between LP ratio and all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and (2) association between LP ratio and survival to hospital discharge with poor neurological function.Discussion: Markers measuring cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic changes after successful resuscitation are urgently needed to enable a more personalized post-resuscitation care and prognostication. Jugular bulb microdialysis may provide a reliable global estimate of cerebral metabolic state and can be implemented as an entirely new and less invasive diagnostic tool for ICU patients after OHCA and has implications for early prognosis and treatment.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03095742 ). Registered March 30, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Despite Africa's significant infectious disease burden, it is underrepresented in global vaccine clinical trials. While this trend is slowly reversing, it is important to recognize and mitigate the challenges that arise when conducting vaccine clinical trials in this environment. These challenges stem from a variety of factors peculiar to the population and may negatively impact adverse event collection and reporting if not properly addressed. Methods: As a team of clinical researchers working within the MRCG (Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia), we have conducted 12 phase 1 to 3 vaccine trials over the past 10 years. In this article, we discuss the challenges we face and the strategies we have developed to improve the collection and reporting of adverse events in low-income settings. Outcome. Healthcare-seeking behaviors in the Gambia are influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as barriers to accessing orthodox healthcare; participants in trials may resort to non-orthodox care, reducing the accuracy of reported adverse events. To address this, trial eligibility criteria prohibit self-treatment and herbal product use during trials. Instead, round-the-clock care is provided to trial participants, facilitating safety follow-up. Constraints in the healthcare system in the Gambia such as limitations in diagnostic tools limit the specificity of diagnosis when reporting adverse events. To overcome these challenges, the Medical Research Council Unit maintains a Clinical Services Department, offering medical care and diagnostic services to study participants. Sociocultural factors, including low literacy rates and social influences, impact adverse event collection. Solicited adverse events are collected during home visits on paper-based or electronic report forms. Community engagement meetings are held before each study starts to inform community stakeholders about the study and answer any questions they may have. These meetings ensure that influential members of the community understand the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits of participating in the trial. This understanding makes them more likely to support participation within their communities. Conclusion: Conducting ethical vaccine clinical trials in resource-limited settings requires strategies to accurately collect and report adverse events. Our experiences from the Gambia offer insights into adverse event collection in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.Methods: A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.Results: A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials. We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.Conclusions: While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques. [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]

Background Providing evidence of impact highlights the benefits of medical research to society. Such evidence is increasingly requested by research funders and commonly relies on citation analysis. However, other indicators may be more informative. Although frameworks to demonstrate the impact of clinical research have been reported, no complementary framework exists for methodological research. Therefore, we assessed the impact of methodological research projects conducted or completed between 2009 and 2012 at the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology ResearchHub, with a view to developing an appropriate framework. Methods Various approaches to the collection of data on research impact were employed. Citation rates were obtained using Web of Science (http://www.webofknowledge.com/) and analyzed descriptively. Semistructured interviews were conducted to obtain information on the rates of different types of research output that indicated impact for each project. Results were then pooled across all projects. Finally, email queries pertaining to methodology projects were collected retrospectively and their content analyzed. Results Simple citation analysis established the citation rates per year since publication for 74 methodological publications; however, further detailed analysis revealed more about the potential influence of these citations. Interviews that spanned 20 individual research projects demonstrated a variety of types of impact not otherwise collated, for example, applications and further developments of the research; release of software and provision of guidance materials to facilitate uptake; formation of new collaborations and broad dissemination. Finally, 194 email queries relating to 6 methodological projects were received from 170 individuals across 23 countries. They provided further evidence that the methodologies were impacting on research and research practice, both nationally and internationally. We have used the information gathered in this study to adapt an existing framework for impact of clinical research for use in methodological research. Conclusions Gathering evidence on research impact of methodological research from a variety of sources has enabled us to obtain multiple indicators and thus to demonstrate broad impacts of methodological research. The adapted framework developed can be applied to future methodological research and thus provides a tool for methodologists to better assess and report research impacts. [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]

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use. [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]

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: Monitoring and managing data returns in multi-centre randomised controlled trials is an important aspect of trial management. Maintaining consistently high data return rates has various benefits for trials, including enhancing oversight, improving reliability of central monitoring techniques and helping prepare for database lock and trial analyses. Despite this, there is little evidence to support best practice, and current standard methods may not be optimal.Methods: We report novel methods from the Trial of Imaging and Schedule in Seminoma Testis (TRISST), a UK-based, multi-centre, phase III trial using paper Case Report Forms to collect data over a 6-year follow-up period for 669 patients. Using an automated database report which summarises the data return rate overall and per centre, we developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool to allow observation of per-centre trends in data return rate over time. The tool allowed us to distinguish between forms that can and cannot be completed retrospectively, to inform understanding of issues at individual centres. We reviewed these statistics at regular trials unit team meetings. We notified centres whose data return rate appeared to be falling, even if they had not yet crossed the pre-defined acceptability threshold of an 80% data return rate. We developed a set method for agreeing targets for gradual improvement with centres having persistent data return problems. We formalised a detailed escalation policy to manage centres who failed to meet agreed targets. We conducted a post-hoc, descriptive analysis of the effectiveness of the new processes.Results: The new processes were used from April 2015 to September 2016. By May 2016, data return rates were higher than they had been at any time previously, and there were no centres with return rates below 80%, which had never been the case before. In total, 10 centres out of 35 were contacted regarding falling data return rates. Six out of these 10 showed improved rates within 6-8 weeks, and the remainder within 4 months.Conclusions: Our results constitute preliminary effectiveness evidence for novel methods in monitoring and managing data return rates in randomised controlled trials. We encourage other researchers to work on generating better evidence-based methods in this area, whether through more robust evaluation of our methods or of others. [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: Bias in industry-sponsored trials is common and the interpretation of the results can be particularly distorted in favour of the sponsor's product. We investigated sponsors' involvement in the conduct and reporting of industry-sponsored trials. Methods: We included all industry-sponsored trials published in The Lancet in 2008 and 2009 and corresponding trial protocols provided by The Lancet. For each protocol and publication, we extracted information on trial conduct and reporting. Results: We identified 169 publications of randomised trials and included 69 (41%) that were industry-sponsored, and 12 (7%) industry-funded but seemingly independently conducted as a subsample. Entry of data into the study database was done independently by academic authors without the involvement of the sponsor or a contract research organisation in one of the 69 trials. Two trials had independent data analysis and one independent reporting of results. In 11 of the trials, there was a discrepancy between the information in the protocols and papers concerning who analysed the data. In four of the 12 seemingly independent trials, the protocol described sponsors' involvement in writing the report while the published paper explicitly stated that the sponsor was not involved. Conclusions: The sponsors are usually involved in the analysis and reporting of results in industry-sponsored trials, but their exact role is not always clear from the published papers. Journals should require more transparent reporting of the sponsors' role in crucial elements such as data processing, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript and should consider requiring access to trial protocols, independent data analysis and submission of the raw data. [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]

There are good practical reasons to use electronic consent (e-consent) in randomised trials, especially when conducting large-scale clinical trials to answer population-level health research questions. However, determining ethical reasons for e-consent is not so clear and depends on a proper understanding of what e-consent means when used in clinical trials and its ethical significance. Here we focus on four features of ethical significance which give rise to a range of ethical considerations relating to e-consent and merit further focused ethics research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Interest in and use of electronic consent (e-consent) in the conduct of academic clinical trials has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. E-consent offers advantages including increased efficiency and accessibility, and reduced burden on site staff, which can be appealing to academic trialists anticipating challenges in recruitment to complex trial designs or with limited funding. However, there are many options to consider when using e-consent in a study protocol. This paper presents five case studies from Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, demonstrating how e-consent models can be effectively tailored to the needs of different trials. These examples illustrate the options around and benefits of e-consent, the acceptability of e-consent by participants, and the design considerations that were made during the development of the trial protocols. Case studies Five randomised trials are presented, selected from a range of different trial designs, disease areas, interventions, and patient populations. E-consent was either offered as an alternative to paper consent, according to participant preference, or as the sole method of consent. E-consent was generally used to facilitate remote consent in decentralised trials but was also chosen to increase efficiency and reduce burden in an emergency department setting. The technical implementation of e-consent and detailed participant procedures were tailored to the needs of the trial settings and patient populations. For example, accompanying participant information sheets were provided in paper or electronic form, and electronic signatures could be typed or drawn. Administrative data on uptake of e-consent is presented where available. Conclusion This paper demonstrates that the operational and technical aspects of implementing e-consent in clinical trials can be influenced by the trial design, the needs and characteristics of the trial population, financial/efficiency considerations, and level of risk. E-consent is not a one-size-fits-all tool for trials, and its use should be carefully considered during the development of the trial protocol, in conjunction with patient and public involvement contributors, site staff and other trial stakeholders.

Background: Applications of causal inference methods to randomised controlled trial (RCT) data have usually focused on adjusting for compliance with the randomised intervention rather than on using RCT data to address other, non-randomised questions. In this paper we review use of causal inference methods to assess the impact of aspects of patient management other than the randomised intervention in RCTs.Methods: We identified papers that used causal inference methodology in RCT data from Medline, Premedline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from 1986 to September 2014, using a forward citation search of five seminal papers, and a keyword search. We did not include studies where inverse probability weighting was used solely to balance baseline characteristics, adjust for loss to follow-up or adjust for non-compliance to randomised treatment. Studies where the exposure could not be assigned were also excluded.Results: There were 25 papers identified. Nearly half the papers (11/25) estimated the causal effect of concomitant medication on outcome. The remainder were concerned with post-randomisation treatment regimens (sequential treatments, n =5 ), effects of treatment timing (n = 2) and treatment dosing or duration (n = 7). Examples were found in cardiovascular disease (n = 5), HIV (n = 7), cancer (n = 6), mental health (n = 4), paediatrics (n = 2) and transfusion medicine (n = 1). The most common method implemented was a marginal structural model with inverse probability of treatment weighting.Conclusions: Examples of studies which exploit RCT data to address non-randomised questions using causal inference methodology remain relatively limited, despite the growth in methodological development and increasing utilisation in observational studies. Further efforts may be needed to promote use of causal methods to address additional clinical questions within RCTs to maximise their value. [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: Enrolment of patients into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in violation of key inclusion or exclusion criteria, may lead to excess avoidable harm. The purpose of this paper was to systematically identify and review techniques and interventions proven to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into RCTs. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, online abstract repositories, and conference websites were searched. Experts were contacted and bibliographies of retrieved papers hand-searched. The search cut-off date was 31 August 2009. Results: No primary publications were found. We identified one study in the grey literature (conference abstracts and presentations) reporting the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of an intervention designed to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into an RCT. In the context of a multicentre trial, use of a dummy enrolment run-in phase was shown to reduce enrolment errors significantly (P < 0.001), from 16.1% during the run-in phase to < 1% after trial initiation. Conclusions: Our systematic search yielded only one technique or intervention shown to improve adherence to eligibility criteria during enrolment into RCTs. Given the potential harm involved in recruiting patients into a clinical trial in violation of key eligibility criteria, future research is needed to better inform those conducting clinical trials of how best to prevent enrolment errors [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 There is growing interest in conducting clinical and cluster randomized trials through electronic health records. This paper reports on the methodological issues identified during the implementation of two cluster randomized trials using the electronic health records of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Methods Two trials were completed in primary care: one aimed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infection; the other aimed to increase physician adherence with secondary prevention interventions after first stroke. The paper draws on documentary records and trial datasets to report on the methodological experience with respect to research ethics and research governance approval, general practice recruitment and allocation, sample size calculation and power, intervention implementation, and trial analysis. Results We obtained research governance approvals from more than 150 primary care organizations in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were 104 CPRD general practices recruited to the antibiotic trial and 106 to the stroke trial, with the target number of practices being recruited within six months. Interventions were installed into practice information systems remotely over the internet. The mean number of participants per practice was 5,588 in the antibiotic trial and 110 in the stroke trial, with the coefficient of variation of practice sizes being 0.53 and 0.56 respectively. Outcome measures showed substantial correlations between the 12 months before, and after intervention, with coefficients ranging from 0.42 for diastolic blood pressure to 0.91 for proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed, defining practice and participant eligibility for analysis requires careful consideration. Conclusions Cluster randomized trials may be performed efficiently in large samples from UK general practices using the electronic health records of a primary care database. The geographical dispersal of trial sites presents a difficulty for research governance approval and intervention implementation. Pretrial data analyses should inform trial design and analysis plans. [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 E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial.Methods and Design: E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Registered on 29 December 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite efforts to improve the accuracy and transparency of the design, conduct, and reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), deficiencies remain. Such deficiencies contribute to significant, avoidable waste of health research investment and impede reproducibility. This study aimed to synthesise and critically analyse changes over time in the conduct and reporting of internationally published evidence on patient and/or population health-oriented RCTs conducted in one country.Methods: This observational study drew on systematic review methods. We searched six databases for published RCTs (database inception to December 2018) where ≥ 80% of participants were recruited in the Republic of Ireland. RCTs of interventions targeted at patients, providers and/or policy makers intended to improve health, healthcare or health research were included. For each study, screening, data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were conducted by one member of the author team.Results: From 17,560 titles and abstracts, 752 unique RCTs were published in 745 papers between 1968 and 2018, with a steady year-on-year increase since 1968. The number of participants was in the range of 2-8628. The majority were parallel design (86%) and classified as treatment evaluation. Of the 418 RCTs published since the introduction of mandatory clinical trial registration by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2005, 32% (n = 134) provided a trial registration number. This increased to 47% when taking studies published between 2013 and 2018 (n = 232). Since the 1996 publication of the CONSORT statement, 16% of included RCTs made specific reference to a standardised reporting guideline and this increased to 31% for more recent studies published between 2013 and 2018. Overall, 7% (n = 53) of studies referred to a published study protocol, increasing to 20% for studies published between 2013 and 2018.Conclusion: Evidence from this single-country study of RCTs published in the international literature suggests that both the number overall, the number registered and the number referencing reporting guidelines have increased steadily over time. Despite widespread endorsement of reporting standards, reporting of RCTs remains suboptimal in domains such as compliance with the CONSORT statement and prospective trial registration. Researchers, funders and journal editors, nationally and internationally, should continue to focus on improving reporting and examining avoidable waste of health research investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future.Methods: The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives.Results: The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base.Conclusions: Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. Methods: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April–June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. Results: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. Conclusion: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent. [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: Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.Methods: We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.Results: The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.Conclusions: The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persons with a past episode of self-harm or severe suicidal ideation are at elevated risk of self-harm as well as dying by suicide. It is well established that suicidal ideation fluctuates over time. Previous studies have shown that a personal safety plan can assist in providing support, when a person experiences suicide ideation, and help seeking professional assistance if needed. The aim of the trial is to determine whether a newly developed safety mobile app is more effective in reducing suicide ideation and other symptoms, compared to a safety plan on paper.Methods/design: The trial is designed as a two-arm, observer-blinded, parallel-group randomized clinical superiority trial, where participants will either receive: (1) Experimental intervention: the safety plan provided as the app MyPlan, or (2) Treatment as Usual: the safety plan in the original paper format. Based on a power calculation, a total of 546 participants, 273 in each arm will be included. They will be recruited from Danish Suicide Prevention Clinics. Both groups will receive standard psychosocial therapeutic care, up to 8-10 sessions of supportive psychotherapy. Primary outcome will be reduction in suicide ideation after 12 months. Follow-up interviews will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after date of inclusion.Discussion: A safety plan is a mandatory part of the treatment in the Suicide Prevention Clinics in Demark. There are no studies investigating the effectiveness of a safety plan app compared to a safety plan on paper on reducing suicide ideation in patients with suicide ideation and suicidal behavior. The trial will gain new knowledge of whether modern technology can augment the effects of traditional personalized safety planning.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877316 . Registered on 19 August 2016. [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]

Background: The process for data collection in multicenter trials may be troublesome and expensive. We report our experience with the spreadsheet function in Googledocs for this purpose. Methods: In Googledocs the data manager creates a form similar to the paper case record form, which will function as a decentral data entry module. When the forms are submitted, they are presented in a spreadsheet in Googledocs, which can be exported to different standard spreadsheet formats. Results: For a multicenter randomized clinical trial with five different participating hospitals we created a decentral data entry module using the spreadsheet function in Googledocs. The study comprised 332 patients (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00815698) with five visits per patient. One person at each study site entered data from the original paper based case report forms which were kept at the study sites as originals. We did not experience any technical problems using the system. Conclusions: The system allowed for decentral data entry, and it was easy to use, safe, and free of charge. The spreadsheet function in Googledocs may potentially replace current expensive solutions for data acquisition in multicenter trials. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00815698 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]