Search

Youth have a right to participate in research that will inform the care that they receive. Engagement with children and young people has been shown to improve rates of enrollment and retention in clinical trials as well as reduce research waste. The aim of the study is to gain practical insight on the design of trials specifically on (1) recruitment and retention preferences, (2) potential barriers to research, and (3) study design optimization. Based on this youth engagement, we will co‐design two clinical trials in headaches with youth. Two recruitment strategies were used to recruit 16 youth from across Canada (aged 15–18 years) from an existing youth group, the KidsCan Young Persons' Research Advisory Group (YPRAG) and a new youth group in collaboration with Solutions for Kids in Pain (SKIP). Four virtual, semi‐structured discussion groups were held between April and December 2020, which included pre‐circulated materials and utilized two distinct upcoming planned trials as examples for specific methods feedback. Individual engagement evaluations were completed following the final group session using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Descriptive results were shared with participants prior to publication to ensure appropriate interpretation. The discussion was centred around three themes: recruitment and retention preferences, potential barriers to participation, and study design optimization. Youth indicated that they would prefer to be contacted for a potential study directly by their physician (not over social media), that they would like to develop rapport with study staff, and that one of the barriers to participation is the time commitment. The youth also provided feedback on the design of the clinical trial including outcome measurement tools, data collection, and engagement methods. Feedback on the virtual format of the engagement events indicated that participants appreciated the ease of the online discussion and that the open‐ended discussion allowed for easy exchange of ideas. They felt that despite a gender imbalance (towards females) it was an overall inclusive environment. All participants reported believing that their engagement will make a difference to the work of the research team in designing the clinical trials. Perspectives from a diverse group of youth meaningfully improved the design and conduct of two clinical trials for headaches in children. This study provides a framework for future researchers to engage youth in the co‐design of clinical trials using online engagement sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The promise of real-world evidence (RWE) is especially relevant to pediatrics, where medicines prescribed for children are often used without evidence derived from randomized clinical trials. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to describe the state of RWE in pediatrics by identifying observational studies published during 2016 that used RWE to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Methods: An electronic search of PubMed was combined with an extended search of references within systematic reviews and expert suggestions. Studies were included if they reported on an infant or child under 18 years with exposure to medications; assessed safety or effectiveness; specified a comparison or control group, and were published in English in 2016. Data extraction was conducted by one team member using a standardized form and reviewed by a second team member. Study quality was assessed using the GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies. Results: After removing duplicates, 915 citations were screened and 29 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the eligible studies relied on primary data collection or chart review at a single institution and did not use the growing number of administrative or electronic health record databases available. One-quarter of the studies did not use well-established statistical methods to control for confounders. No single disease group or medication predominated, and age groups ranged from infants to adolescents. Conclusions: A small body of observational studies published in 2016 were categorized by the study team as using real-world data to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Studies varied in age groups, diseases or conditions, and methods, and may not have fully met the FDA definition of RWE. Our review indicates that the use of RWE is not fully developed in pediatrics, and suggests an opportunity to further develop capabilities and more fully leverage administrative and electronic health record databases to study medication safety and effectiveness in children. Our systematic review appears generalizable to pediatrics broadly, and documents that the high level of activity in RWE in general has had less of an impact on pediatrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although children have historically been excluded from clinical trials (CTs), many require medicines tested and approved in CTs, forcing health care providers to treat their pediatric patients based on extrapolated data. Unfortunately, traditional randomized CTs can be slow and resource-intensive, and they often require multi-center collaboration. However, an adaptive design (AD) framework for CTs could be used to increase the efficiency of pediatric CTs by incorporating prospectively planned modifications to CT methods without undermining the integrity or validity of the study. There are many possible adaptations, but each will have ethical, logistical, and statistical implications. It remains unclear which adaptations (or combinations thereof) will lead to real-world improvements in pediatric CT efficiency. This study will identify, evaluate, and synthesize the various regulatory, ethical, logistical, and statistical considerations and emerging issues of AD in CTs that could be used to evaluate the use of drugs in children.Methods/design: Following the development of a peer-reviewed search strategy, a systematic review on AD in CTs will be conducted. Data on regulatory, ethical, logistic, and statistical considerations as well as population and trial design characteristics will be synthesized. A mixed-methods study including surveys and focus groups with regulators, research ethics board members, biostatisticians, clinicians, and scientists, as well as representatives from patient groups and the public will evaluate the opportunities and challenges in applying AD in trials enrolling children and propose recommendations on best practices.Discussion: This study will deliver practical recommendations on the use of AD in pediatric CTs. Collaboration and consultation with national and global partners will ensure that our results meet the needs of researchers, regulators, and patients, both locally and globally, and that they remain current and relevant by engaging a wide variety of stakeholders. Overall, this research will enrich the knowledge base regarding if, how, and when AD can be used to answer research questions with fewer resources while still meeting the highest ethical standards and regulatory requirements for CTs. In turn, this will result in increased high-quality clinical research needed by health care providers so they have access to appropriate, population-specific evidence regarding the safe and effective use of medicines in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The value of comparative effectiveness trials in informing clinical and policy decisions depends heavily on the choice of control arm (comparator). Our objective is to identify challenges in comparator reasoning and to determine justification criteria for selecting a control arm in paediatric clinical trials.Design: A literature search was completed to identify existing sources of guidance on comparator selection. Subsequently, we reviewed a randomly selected sample of comparators selected for paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) adopted by the Paediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency in 2013. We gathered descriptive information and evaluated their review process to identify challenges and compromises between regulators and sponsors with regard to the selection of the comparator. A tool to help investigators justify the selection of active controls and placebo arms was developed using the existing literature and empirical data.Results: Justifying comparator selection was a challenge in 28% of PIPs. The following challenging paediatric issues in the decision-making process were identified: use of off-label medications as comparators, ethical and safe use of placebo, duration of placebo use, an undefined optimal dosing strategy, lack of age-appropriate safety and efficacy data, and drug dosing not supported by extrapolation of safety/efficacy evidence from other populations.Conclusions: In order to generate trials that will inform clinical decision-making and support marketing authorisations, researchers must systemically and transparently justify their selection of the comparator arm for their study. This report highlights key areas for justification in the choice of comparator in paediatric clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging viral infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have garnered unprecedented attention as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 following several small clinical trials, uncontrolled case series, and public figure endorsements. While there is a growing body of scientific data, there is also concern for harm, particularly QTc prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias. Here, we perform a rapid narrative review and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing in vitro and clinical studies. We call for additional randomized controlled trial evidence prior to the widespread incorporation of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into national and international treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the aspects to consider for clinical trials to study the use of cannabinoids for Canadian children with neurologic disorders. Topics mentioned include the need for clinical trials on the use of cannabinoids in pediatric patients to determine its safety and effectiveness and to guide in dosing and the requirements for clinical trial design considerations, such as engagement with families, innovative methods, and multisite collaboration.

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines.Methods: The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities.Discussion: InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]