Search

What Is Known and Objective: The discussion about health equity in the United States frequently involves concerns over racial and ethnic minority under-representation in clinical trials and particularly in trials conducted in support of product approvals. The FDA has long worked to encourage diverse participation in clinical trials and through its Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to make trial demographic data more accessible and transparent. We conducted a demographic study of U.S. participants in clinical trials for FDA-approved new drugs (new molecular entities [NMEs], and original Biologics License Applications [BLAs]) from 2015 to 2019, as reported in DTS database with a purpose of understanding the extent to which U.S.-based trials used to support product approvals represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population by therapeutic area., Methods: Participant-level trial data were collected by accessing the FDA electronic common technical document (eCTD), for the applications used to publish each Snapshot. The therapeutic area (TA) for each drug was determined by review division assignment. The demographic data were analysed and compared to U.S. census data., Results and Discussion: We examined 102,596 U.S. participants in trials of new drugs that were approved and presented in Drug Trials Snapshots between 2015 and 2019. White participation ranged from 51% in psychiatric trials to 90% in cardiovascular (CV) trials; Black or African American participation ranged from 5% in medical imaging to 45% in psychiatric trials; Asian participation ranged from 0.75% in CV to 4% in dermatologic trials; and Hispanic or Latino participation ranged from 1% in medical imaging to 22% in infectious diseases and gastroenterology trials., What Is New and Conclusion: Our data showed variable representation of racial and ethnic minorities across therapeutic areas at the U.S. sites. Blacks or African Americans were represented at or above U.S. census estimates across most therapeutic areas, while Asians and American Indian or Alaska Natives were consistently underrepresented. Hispanic or Latino participation across most therapeutic areas was below U.S. census estimates, however, more variable, and a sizable proportion of data was missing. The next step is a comparison of trial participation based on disease prevalence and epidemiology, which is a more accurate assessment of trial diversity., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Interventions designed to limit the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are having profound effects on the delivery of health care, but data showing the impact on oncology clinical trial enrollment, treatment, and monitoring are limited. We prospectively tracked relevant data from oncology clinical trials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2020, including the number of open trials, new patient enrollments, in-person and virtual patient visits, dispensed investigational infusions, dispensed or shipped oral investigational agents, research biopsies, and blood samples. We ascertained why patients came off trials and determined on-site clinical research staffing levels. We used 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess the statistical significance of the reported changes. Nearly all patients on interventional treatment trials were maintained, and new enrollments continued at just under one-half the prepandemic rate. The median number of investigational prescriptions shipped to patients increased from 0 to 74 (range = 22-107) per week from March to June 2020. The median number of telemedicine appointments increased from 0 to 107 (range = 33-267) per week from March to June 2020. Research biopsies and blood collections decreased dramatically after Dana-Farber Cancer Institute implemented COVID-19-related policies in March 2020. The number of research nurses and clinical research coordinators on site also decreased after March 2020. Substantial changes were required to safely continue clinical research during the pandemic, yet we observed no increases in serious adverse events or major violations related to drug dosing. Lessons learned from adapting research practices during COVID-19 can inform industry sponsors and governmental agencies to consider altering practices to increase operational efficiency and convenience for patients., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and enablers to participant retention in trials requiring questionnaire return and/or attendance at follow-up clinics., Study Design and Setting: We invited participants (n = 607) from five pragmatic effectiveness trials, who missed at least one follow-up time point (by not returning a questionnaire and/or not attending a clinic visit), to take part in semistructured telephone interviews. The TDF informed both data collection and analysis. To establish what barriers and enablers most likely influence the target behavior the domain relevance threshold was set at >75% of participants mentioning the domain., Results: Sixteen participants (out of 25 showing interest) were interviewed. Overall, seven theoretical domains were identified as both barriers and enablers to the target behaviors of attending clinic appointments and returning postal questionnaires. Barriers frequently reported in relation to both target behaviours stemmed from participants' knowledge, beliefs about their capabilities and the consequences of performing (or not performing) the behavior. Two domains were identified as salient for questionnaire return only: goals; and memory, attention and decision-making. Emotion was identified as relevant for clinic attendance only., Conclusion: This is the first study informed by behavioural science to explore trial participants' accounts of trial retention. Findings will serve as a guiding framework when designing trials to limit barriers and enhance enablers of retention within clinical trials., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist., Objective: To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires., Exposures: Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics., Main Outcomes and Measures: History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models., Results: The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%])., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Importance: During the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer clinical trial participation decreased precipitously. Given the continued pandemic-especially the severe wave of new cases and deaths in winter 2020 to 2021-a vital question is whether trial enrollments have remained low or even worsened., Objective: To examine the experience of cancer clinical trial enrollment 1 year after the COVID-19 outbreak., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examines initial enrollments to treatment trials and cancer control and prevention (CCP) trials conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network between January 1, 2016, and February 28, 2021. Participants include patients enrolled in the trials., Exposures: Landmark time points reflecting the onset and the apex, respectively, of the initial COVID-19 wave (March 1 to April 25, 2020) and the winter 2020 to 2021 wave (October 4, 2020, to January 23, 2021)., Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used interrupted time-series analysis to examine enrollments over time related to the COVID-19-derived exposure variables using negative-binomial regression. Relative risk (RR) estimates representing weekly enrollment changes compared with expected rates (had the pandemic not occurred) were derived. The numbers of enrollments lost during the pandemic were estimated., Results: Overall, 29 398 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [13.2] years) were enrolled (24 034 before the pandemic and 5364 during the pandemic), with 9198 patients (31.3%) aged 65 years or older, 17 199 female patients (58.6%), 3039 Black patients (10.8%), and 2260 Hispanic patients (7.9%). Most enrollments (19 451 [66.2%]) were to treatment trials. During the initial COVID-19 wave, there was a 9.0% model-estimated weekly reduction in enrollments (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93; P < .001), with effects compounding each week. Enrollment recovered thereafter, but decreased again during the winter 2020 to 2021 wave, although by only 2.0% each week (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < .001). Overall, during the pandemic, actual enrollments were 77.3% of expected enrollments (5364 of 6913 enrollments; 95% CI, 70.5%-85.0%; P < .001). Actual enrollments were 54.0% of expected enrollments for CCP trials (1421 of 2641 enrollments; 95% CI, 43.0%-67.0%; P < .001) and 91.0% of expected enrollments for treatment trials (3922 of 4304 enrollments; 95% CI, 81.0%-102.0%; P = .12)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, clinical trial enrollments decreased during the full year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrollment reductions were primarily to CCP trials, whereas, remarkably, there was not strong evidence of enrollment reductions to treatment trials. This finding suggests that clinical research rapidly adapted to the circumstances of enrolling and treating patients on protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Major advances in cancer care often emerge from the development of novel targets. We randomly sampled 10% of cancer trials on clinicaltrials.gov with start dates 2013-2016 to determine the proportion of trials and research subjects directed at evaluating novel targets. We found that 87 of 378 trials (23.0%) enrolling 9225 of 44,525 patients (20.7%) tested interventions that are directed towards novel targets. 146 of 378 trials (38.6%) enrolling 19,132 of 44,525 patients (43.0%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved but utilized a previously studied target for treating cancer. Combined, 233 of 378 trials (61.6%) enrolling 28,357 of 44,525 patients (63.9%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved. Furthermore, 36 of 378 trials (9.5%) enrolling 6592 of 44,525 patients (14.8%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs in their approved indication and combination while 109 of 378 trials (28.8%) enrolling 9576 of 44,525 patients (21.5%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs outside of their approved indication or combination. Logistic regression found that phase 1 trials were significantly more likely to test novel target interventions than phase 2 and 3 trials (p value = 0.00197 and 0.00130 respectively). Industry sponsored trials were also significantly more likely to involve novel target interventions than non-industry trials (p value <0.001). In conclusion, most cancer trials involve unapproved treatments, but a majority of these treatments are well-characterized or involve a previously studied target to treat cancer.

Background: The management of complex cartilage pathology in young, otherwise healthy patients can be difficult., Purpose: To determine the nature of the design, endpoints chosen, and rate at which the endpoints were met in published studies and ongoing clinical trials that investigate cartilage repair and restoration procedures., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: A systematic review of the publicly available level I/II literature and of the publicly listed clinical trials regarding cartilage repair and restoration procedures for the knee was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines., Results: Seventeen published studies and 52 clinical trials were included. Within the 17 published studies, the most common procedure studied was microfracture (MFX) + augmentation ( N = 5; 29.4%) and the most common comparison/control group was MFX ( N = 10; 58.8%). In total, 13 different cartilage procedure groups were evaluated. For published studies, the most common patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures assessed is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS) ( N = 10 studies, 58.8% each, respectively). Overall, there are 10 different PROs used among the included studies. Ten studies demonstrate superiority, 5 demonstrate noninferiority, and 2 demonstrate inferiority to the comparison or control groups. For the clinical trials included, the most common procedure studied is MFX + augmentation ( N = 16; 30.8%). The most common PRO assessed is KOOS ( N = 36 trials; 69.2%), and overall there are 24 different PROs used among the included studies., Conclusions: Recently published studies and clinical trials evaluate a variety of cartilage repair and restoration strategies for the knee, most commonly MFX + augmentation, at various time points of outcome evaluation, with KOOS and VAS scores being used most commonly. MFX remains the most common comparison group for these therapeutic investigations. Most studies demonstrate superiority versus comparison or control groups. Understanding the nature of published and ongoing clinical trials will be helpful in the investigation of emerging technologies required to navigate the regulatory process while studying a relatively narrow population of patients.

Background: Clinical trials are important to improve public health care. However, recruiting participants for trials can be difficult., Aims: This study assessed public knowledge of and willingness to participate in clinical trials in Jordan and examine the sociodemographic characteristics associated with knowledge and willingness and the reasons behind unwillingness to participate., Methods: The questions were part of a representative, population-based survey in 2011 that included 3196 Jordanian individuals. In a home-based interview, participants were asked about: sociodemographic characteristics, and knowledge of and participation in clinical trials., Results: Only 21.8% of respondents knew what a clinical trial was and (1.2%) had participated in a trial. About 25% of respondents indicated their willingness to enrol in a trial. Significantly more men (24.1%) than women (19.3%) knew what clinical trials were (P < 0.001), whereas more women (4.3%) than men (2.9%) said they would be very likely to agree to participate in trials. People aged 40-49 years had better knowledge of and greater willingness to participate in trials than other age groups. Income was positively associated with knowledge of trials but negatively associated with willingness to participate. Higher education was positively correlated with knowledge of and willingness to take part in trials. The main reasons for not participating in trials were concern about the risk to own health (61.1%) and not being convinced about the outcome and benefits of clinical trials (29.7%)., Conclusion: The low level of knowledge of and willingness to participate in clinical trials indicates that strategies are needed to educate the public about the nature and importance of clinical trials., (Copyright © World Health Organization (WHO) 2020. Open Access. Some rights reserved. This work is available under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).)

Process to obtain informed consent is an essential component in research involving human subjects. However, much is not known about the level of awareness participants have about optimal consenting process and the motives that drive their participation in the trials. A cross-sectional study was conducted among volunteers who had been participating in clinical trials in contract research organizations of Delhi. Validated questionnaires were used to assess their knowledge, attitude, and practice of informed consent process. Most of the volunteers, 226 (56.5%), had participated in 1 to 3 clinical trials. Majority (54%) were unaware about any informed consent document. None of them were aware of their right of profession competence, privacy and integrity, transparency, nonexploitation, and nonusage of their biological samples. Effective implementation of principles of informed consenting is largely lacking among contract research organizations in Delhi, India. This could potentially cause risk to the participants.

This study aimed to assess patient investigational medication knowledge and to identify factors associated with medication understanding by adult outpatients included in clinical trials. A cross-sectional prospectively designed survey was conducted on consecutive volunteers at 21 university teaching hospitals (in France) from February to December 2014. Investigational medication understanding was assessed at the time of the first dispensing using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire based on information obtained from the literature that provided an 8-point score. Demographic and other baseline data were collected using structured interviews. Of the 236 participants, 139 (58.9%) of the respondents were male, and the median age was 54.9 years (range: 18-83 years). The mean understanding score was 6.24 and 72.5% of the patients had a score of 6 or higher. In univariate analysis, the medication understanding score was negatively correlated with age (r = -0.15, p = 0.0247) and positively correlated with the level of education (r = 0.25, p = 0.0002). In multivariate analysis, prognostic factors of a higher medication understanding score were: graduation from high school or a higher level of education; HIV infection; phase II/III/IV studies; mention of the drug on the prescription form, and the dispensing of a single investigational medication. Only a quarter of the adult outpatients included in clinical trials had a maximum possible investigational medication understanding score. Being old and having a low level of education were found to be important risk factors for inadequate medication understanding. This and other data suggest that sponsors should encourage initiatives aimed at improving investigational medication understanding in adults enrolled in clinical trials., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Cancer survival rates in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) have shown slow improvements in comparison with other age groups, and this may be due to lower participation in clinical trials. Little evidence has been provided regarding how nonmetropolitan residence may influence clinical trial enrollment for AYAs with cancer. This study sought to determine whether AYAs from nonmetropolitan areas have lower rates of clinical trial enrollment than their urban counterparts and to examine factors associated with enrollment variation., Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's 2006 and 2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Patterns of Care AYA cohorts were analyzed. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sarcoma were included (n = 3155). Urban influence codes were used to measure the rurality of the county of residence at diagnosis, which was categorized as large metropolitan, small metropolitan, or nonmetropolitan. Logistic regression compared trial participants and nonparticipants while adjusting for patient and provider factors., Results: Compared with AYAs from large metropolitan counties, AYAs from small metropolitan (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.64) or nonmetropolitan counties (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.81) experienced greater trial enrollment. AYAs treated at a hospital with a residency program (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.63-3.16) or by a pediatric oncologist (OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 3.03-5.32) were associated with greater enrollment. There was a significant interaction between rurality and hospital size, which had the greatest impact on nonmetropolitan enrollment., Conclusions: Clinical trial enrollment was higher among AYAs from nonmetropolitan counties than those from metropolitan counties, predominantly when they were treated at large hospitals., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Targeted Evaluation Action and Monitoring of Traumatic Brain Injury (TEAM-TBI) is a monitored, multiple interventional research identifying clinical profiles and assigns individualized, evidence-based treatment program. The objective of the current study was to assess overall participant satisfaction of the multi-disciplinary care team and approach., Methods: Between 2014 and 2017, 90 participants completed the 4-day TEAM-TBI clinical intake evaluation resulting in individualized treatment recommendations followed by a six-month intervention phase follow-up. Inclusion criteria were: age 18-60, history of chronic TBI (>6 months post-injury) with refractory clinical sequelae at screening (Post-Concussion Symptom Scale [PCSS] score >30)., Results: A total of 85/90 (94%) participants completed the survey at baseline focusing on intake evaluation and approach; 90% of eligible participants also completed the follow-up time-point. Hundred percent of participants had a mean score of >4 across all questions at the initial time point.", Conclusions: The multi-disciplinary care approach and individualized treatment plans of the TEAM-TBI study yielded high participant retention and satisfaction scores. The Clinical Coach component of the trial was one of the highest rated aspects of the program and was associated with participant motivation and high retention rates., (© The Author 2019. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of Association of Military Surgeons of the United States]. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Stagnant outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) 15-39 years of age with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. Initiatives have focused on increasing accrual, but changes at the population-level are unknown. We examined patterns of clinical trial participation over time in AYA patients with cancer., Procedure: We utilized medical record data from AYAs in two population-based National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Studies identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. Among 3135 AYAs diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and sarcoma, we used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with clinical trial enrollment. Interaction terms evaluated variation in clinical trial enrollment across patient and provider characteristics by year of diagnosis., Results: From 2006 to 2012-2013, clinical trial participation increased from 14.8% to 17.9% (P < 0.01). Adjusting for patient and provider characteristics, we found lower clinical trial enrollment among those who were older at diagnosis, diagnosed with NHL vs ALL, treated by adult hematologist/oncologists only (vs pediatric hematologist/oncologists), and of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic White) (P < 0.05 for all). Interaction analyses indicate improved clinical trial enrollment from 2006 to 2012-2013 among young adults 25-29 years of age and the uninsured., Conclusions: Although disparities in enrollment onto clinical trials remain for AYAs with cancer, our study identified increasing overall clinical trial participation over time. Further, we identify promising trends in enrollment uptake among AYAs 25-29 years of age and the uninsured., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Race, ethnicity, sex, and age are demographic factors that can influence drug exposure and/or response, and can consequently affect treatment outcome. We evaluated demographic subgroup enrollment patterns in new therapeutic products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of select cancers-breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate-that have comparative differences in morbidity and/or mortality among some demographic subgroups. In submissions of products approved between 2008 and 2013, participants (n = 22,481) were white (80%), from outside the United States (74%), between 17 and 64 years old (59%), and men (56% and 53%, including and excluding sex-specific indications, respectively). In pivotal trials of products approved between2014 and 2017, participants (n = 3,612) were white (71%), between 17 and 64 years old (61%), and men (48% and 63%, including and excluding sex-specific indications, respectively). The US-relevant minority populations were under-represented. A broader representation of patient subgroups in clinical trials may contribute to better understanding of exposure and/or response variability, and consequently help personalize drug therapy., (Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are disproportionately affected by cancer, yet underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. Because of this, it is important to understand how attitudes and beliefs about clinical trials vary by ethnicity. A national, random sample of 860 adults was given an online survey about attitudes toward clinical trials. We examined willingness to participate in clinical trials, attitudes toward clinical trials, trust in doctors, attitudes toward alternative and complementary medicine, and preferred information channels. Results indicate that African-American and Hispanic-American participants have more negative attitudes about clinical trials, more distrust toward doctors, more interest in complementary and alternative medicine, and less willingness to participate in clinical trials than white/non-Hispanics, although specific factors affecting willingness to participate vary. The channels people turn to for information on clinical trials also varied by ethnicity. These results help explain the ethnic disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment by highlighting some potential underlying causes and drawing attention to areas of importance to these groups.

Background: Missing data in substance use disorder (SUD) research pose a significant threat to internal validity. Participants terminate involvement or become less likely to attend intervention and research visits for many reasons, which should be addressed prior to becoming problematic. During a 9-month study targeting stimulant abuse, early dropouts and participant reported attendance barriers led to implementing a structured, pre-randomization protocol with participants about retention and solution-focused strategies (the "Fireside Chat"). Our aim is to outline this approach and present data on intervention participation and research visit attendance after implementation., Methods/design: STimulant Reduction using Dosed Exercise (STRIDE) was a two-arm, multisite randomized clinical trial testing treatment-as-usual for stimulant abuse/dependence augmented by Exercise or Health Education. For both groups, study intervention visits at the site were scheduled 3/week for 12weeks followed by 1/week for 24weeks. During The Chat, research staff thoroughly reviewed participants' expectations, and barriers and solutions to retention. Fifteen participants were randomized (to Exercise or Health Education) prior to and fourteen were randomized after Chat implementation. Intervention and monthly follow-up attendance (before and after implementation) were compared at the site (N=29) that developed and rigorously implemented The Chat., Results: Individuals who participated in The Chat (n=14) attended significantly more intervention visits during weeks 1-12 (p<0.001) and weeks 13-36 (p<0.05) and attended more research visits (p<0.001)., Discussion: Proactive discussion of expectations and barriers prior to randomization was associated with greater study attendance. SUD researchers should consider tailoring this approach to suit their needs. Further investigation is warranted., Competing Interests: Drs. Northrup, Walker, Rethorst, Warden, & Stotts declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: While ethicists have for many years called for human subject trial participants and, in some cases, local community members to benefit from participation in pharmaceutical and other intervention-based therapies, little is known about how these discussions are impacting the practice of research ethics boards (REBs) that grant ethical approval to many of these studies., Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with 23 REB members from across Canada, a major funder country for human subject research internationally. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. After coding, the data was analyzed to identify central themes and topics. Themes were identified, application of the themes was confirmed, and these themes were then used to populate the findings of this manuscript., Results: Our analysis of the interviews identified two primary themes when considering what benefits are owed to research participants and their communities. 1) Most study participants felt that given that these studies are led by persons in the role of researcher rather than health care provider, they had a limited obligation to provide benefits to study participants. 2) These REB members were all working in Canada, a high income country where most residents enjoy high levels of access to health care. As a result of this context, the study participants tended to focus on ethical concerns including obtaining informed consent and avoiding undue inducement to participate in research rather than ensuring that study participants directly benefit from successful trials., Conclusions: Research on REB members' attitudes toward what benefits are owed to study participants and community members is needed in other countries in order to determine how context affects these attitudes.

The inclusion of women in clinical trials has raised a variety of ethical and practical issues in their implementation. In the recent CAMELIA clinical trial in Cambodia, the inclusion criteria included a negative pregnancy test and signature of the consent form confirming commitment to double contraceptive use as patients were given drugs contra-indicated in case of pregnancy. But despite precautions and the requirement stated in the informed consent form, 19 out of 236 enrolled women became pregnant during the trial. The current paper describes the frictions and subjectivities that emerge as new medical technologies travel to resource-poor settings--and more specifically, how trial researchers, health workers, and research subjects involved in the CAMELIA trial negotiate the injunction to avoid pregnancy while using a teratogenic drug.