Search

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably disrupted nearly all aspects of daily life, including healthcare delivery and clinical research. Because pragmatic clinical trials are often embedded within healthcare delivery systems, they may be at high risk of disruption due to the dual impacts on the conduct of both care and research. Methods We collected qualitative data using multiple methods to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on the research activities of 14 active pragmatic clinical trials in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. A COVID-19 impact questionnaire was administered electronically to principal investigators in June 2020. Text responses were analyzed thematically, and qualitative summaries were subsequently reviewed by five independent reviewers, who made iterative revisions. Additional COVID-19-related impacts were identified during virtual meetings with trial teams during April–July 2020 and combined with questionnaire responses for analysis. Results Impacts of the pandemic were broadly classified into two main types: healthcare operations and social distancing. In some instances, trial delays created statistical challenges, particularly with trials using stepped-wedge designs, and necessitated changing data collection strategies or modifying interventions. The majority of projects used existing stakeholder-driven approaches to adapt interventions. Several benefits of these adaptions were identified, including expanded outreach capabilities and ability to study virtual intervention delivery. All trial teams were able to adapt to pandemic-related modifications. Conclusion In a group of 14 ongoing pragmatic clinical trials, there was significant impact of COVID-19 on trial activities. Engaging appropriate stakeholders was critical to designing and implementing trial modifications and making continued safe progress toward meeting research objectives.

Clinical trials continue to disproportionately underrepresent people of color. Increasing representation of diverse backgrounds among clinical research personnel has the potential to yield greater representation in clinical trials and more efficacious medical interventions by addressing medical mistrust. In 2019, North Carolina Central University (NCCU), a Historically Black College and University with a more than 80% underrepresented student population, established the Clinical Research Sciences Program with support from the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program at neighboring Duke University. This program was designed to increase exposure of students from diverse educational, racial, and ethnic backgrounds to the field of clinical research, with a special focus on health equity education. In the first year, the program graduated 11 students from the two-semester certificate program, eight of whom now hold positions as clinical research professionals. This article describes how leveraging the CTSA program helped NCCU build a framework for producing a highly trained, competent, and diverse workforce in clinical research responsive to the call for increased diversity in clinical trial participation.

For patients with optimally treated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy can lead to treatment-free remission. In previous trials, TKI discontinuation has been associated with increased musculoskeletal pain in some patients (“withdrawal syndrome”), based on physician-reported adverse events (AE). Patient-reported pain has not been described. The Life After Stopping TKI study was a 14-site prospective, non-randomized clinical trial of TKI discontinuation. We defined increased pain after discontinuation as: (i) a physician-reported pain AE, (ii) a 2-level increase in self-reported musculoskeletal pain (4-level single item), or (iii) initiation of a medication for pain. We plotted the trajectory of patient-reported pain over time using a piecewise mixed-effects ordinal logistic model. Within 3 months of discontinuation, 35 of 172 patients (20.3%) had a physician-reported pain AE, 22 of 172 (12.8%) had an increase in self-reported pain, and 18 of 154 (11.7%) initiated a pain medication. Agreement among these measures was limited; overall, 60 of 172 patients (34.9%) had increased pain. Three patients (1.7%) restarted a TKI because of pain. The modelpredicted trajectory showed an increase in pain in the first 3 months followed by a decrease, returning to baseline levels by 6 months and further decreasing after that. This trajectory was similar among patients who did and did not restart TKI, suggesting that resuming a TKI for withdrawal syndrome may be necessary for some, but other approaches to manage pain should be tried so that patients can remain in treatment-free remission when possible.

Abstract Background Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) offers significant improvements over previous treatments in terms of survival and toxicity yet nevertheless is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and very high cost. Several small studies from Europe and Australia suggested that discontinuing TKIs with regular monitoring was safe. Methods The Life After Stopping TKIs (LAST) study is a large, U.S.-based study that aims to improve the evidence for clinical decision making regarding TKI discontinuation with monitoring in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who have a deep molecular response to TKI therapy. The LAST study is a non-randomized, prospective, single-group longitudinal study of 173 patients. The co-primary objectives are to determine the proportion of patients who develop molecular recurrence (> 0.1% BCR-ABLIS) after discontinuing one of four TKIs (imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib) and to compare the patient-reported health status of patients before and after stopping TKIs. Outcomes are assessed at baseline and throughout the 36-month study follow-up period with a central laboratory used for blood samples. All samples with undetectable BCR-ABL are also examined using digital polymerase chain reaction, which is a more sensitive nanofluidic polymerase chain reaction system. Discussion Because of their high cost and side effects, discontinuation of TKIs for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who have a deep molecular response to TKI therapy is a promising approach to treatment. The LAST study is the largest U.S.-based TKI discontinuation study. It is the first to allow participation from patients on any of 4 first- and second-generation TKIs, includes a robust approach to measurement of clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and is using digital polymerase chain reaction to explore better prediction of safe discontinuation. Trial registration This study was registered prospectively on October 21, 2014 and assigned trial number NCT02269267.

Abstract Background The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. Methods To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. Results In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. Conclusion A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Background Emergent informed consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke is challenging. The role and value of consent are controversial, and insufficient data exist regarding patients’ and surrogates’ experiences. Methods and Results We conducted structured interviews with patients (or surrogates) enrolled in AMI or acute stroke trials at 6 sites between 2011 and 2016. Primary domains included trial recall, consent experiences, and preferences regarding involvement. Descriptive and test statistics were used to characterize responses and explore relationships between key domains and characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between key covariates and consent preferences. There were 176 (84 stroke, 92 AMI) completed interviews. Most stroke respondents (82%) were surrogates; all AMI respondents were patients. Average time from trial enrollment to interview was 1.9 years (stroke) and 2.8 years (AMI); 89% of stroke and 62% of AMI respondents remembered being in the trial, and among these respondents, 80% (stroke) and 44% (AMI) remembered reading some of the consent form. Over 90% reported not feeling pressure to enroll, being treated in a caring way, and being treated with dignity. A minority (16% stroke and 26% AMI) reported they would have preferred not to be asked for consent. Just over half (61% stroke and 53% AMI) recalled a postenrollment conversation about the study. Conclusions Most respondents felt they were treated respectfully and were glad they had been asked for consent. Trial recall was relatively low, and many respondents recalled little postenrollment discussion. Further development of context‐sensitive approaches to consent is important.

BACKGROUND:Despite known health disparities for sexual minorities, few studies have described sexual function by sexual orientation using a robust approach to measurement of sexual function. We compared recent sexual function and satisfaction by sexual orientation among English-speaking US adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Cross-sectional surveys were administered by KnowledgePanel® (GfK), an online panel that uses address-based probability sampling and is representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. Data were collected in 2013 from the general population (n = 3314, 35% response rate) and in 2014 from self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults (n = 1011, 50% response rate). Sexual function and satisfaction were measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction measure version 2.0 (PROMIS SexFS v2). The PROMIS SexFS v2 is a comprehensive, customizable measurement system with evidence for validity in diverse populations. A score of 50 (SD 10) on each domain corresponds to the average for US adults sexually active in the past 30 days. We adjusted all statistics for the complex sample designs and report differences within each sex where the 95% CIs do not overlap, corresponding to p

Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation's capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.

Consent forms have lengthened over time and become harder for participants to understand. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of creating a simplified consent form for biobanking that comprises the minimum information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements. We then gathered preliminary data concerning its content from hypothetical biobank participants.We followed basic principles of plain-language writing and incorporated into a 2-page form (not including the signature page) those elements of information required by federal regulations and recommended by best practice guidelines for biobanking. We then recruited diabetes patients from community-based practices and randomized half (n = 56) to read the 2-page form, first on paper and then a second time on a tablet computer. Participants were encouraged to use "More information" buttons on the electronic version whenever they had questions or desired further information. These buttons led to a series of "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) that contained additional detailed information. Participants were asked to identify specific sentences in the FAQs they thought would be important if they were considering taking part in a biorepository. On average, participants identified 7 FAQ sentences as important (mean 6.6, SD 14.7, range: 0-71). No one sentence was highlighted by a majority of participants; further, 34 (60.7%) participants did not highlight any FAQ sentences.Our preliminary findings suggest that our 2-page form contains the information that most prospective participants identify as important. Combining simplified forms with supplemental material for those participants who desire more information could help minimize consent form length and complexity, allowing the most substantively material information to be better highlighted and enabling potential participants to read the form and ask questions more effectively.

Disclosure of authors' financial interests has been proposed as a strategy for protecting the integrity of the biomedical literature. We examined whether authors' financial interests were disclosed consistently in articles on coronary stents published in 2006.We searched PubMed for English-language articles published in 2006 that provided evidence or guidance regarding the use of coronary artery stents. We recorded article characteristics, including information about authors' financial disclosures. The main outcome measures were the prevalence, nature, and consistency of financial disclosures. There were 746 articles, 2985 authors, and 135 journals in the database. Eighty-three percent of the articles did not contain disclosure statements for any author (including declarations of no interests). Only 6% of authors had an article with a disclosure statement. In comparisons between articles by the same author, the types of disagreement were as follows: no disclosure statements vs declarations of no interests (64%); specific disclosures vs no disclosure statements (34%); and specific disclosures vs declarations of no interests (2%). Among the 75 authors who disclosed at least 1 relationship with an organization, there were 2 cases (3%) in which the organization was disclosed in every article the author wrote.In the rare instances when financial interests were disclosed, they were not disclosed consistently, suggesting that there are problems with transparency in an area of the literature that has important implications for patient care. Our findings suggest that the inconsistencies we observed are due to both the policies of journals and the behavior of some authors.

SUMMARY: BACKGROUND Research on individual differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can identify intervention targets and important covariates in analyses of treatment outcomes.OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to describe HRQOL trajectories for women with metastatic breast cancer in a randomized trial of bisphosphonates and to identify characteristics associated with variations in HRQOL.RESEARCH DESIGN We conducted a prospective quality-of-life study within a randomized, controlled trial.SUBJECTS We studied women with metastatic breast cancer receiving zoledronic acid or pamidronate disodium to reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES HRQOL was measured at fixed time points during the trial. Individual growth-curve modeling was used to describe longitudinal trajectories and to identify predictors of trajectories.RESULTS For most domains of HRQOL, the mean trajectory reflected a mild increase, which leveled off later in the trial. Older age and full-time employment were associated with higher baseline HRQOL. Longer time from cancer diagnosis to randomization, lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status (score of 2 [“inactive”]), and a history of SREs were associated with lower baseline HRQOL. Significant differences across geographic regions were observed for all domains. Active ECOG status (score of 0-1) at baseline was predictive of greater increases in all domains of HRQOL except Social/Family Well-Being. Age, geographic region, and time from first bone metastases to randomization were associated with longitudinal changes in some domains.CONCLUSIONS Women with metastatic breast cancer receiving bisphosphonates for prevention of SREs experienced an overall increase in HRQOL. Variations among women's experiences are explained partly by such characteristics as a history of SREs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.