Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Advancing Inclusive Research: Establishing Collaborative Strategies to Improve Diversity in Clinical Trials

Well-characterized disparities in clinical research have disproportionately affected patients of color, particularly in underserved communities. To tackle these barriers, Genentech formed the External Council for Advancing Inclusive Research, a 14-person committee dedicated to developing strategies to increase clinical research participation. To help improve the recruitment and retention of patients of color, this article chronicles our efforts to tangibly address the clinical research barriers at the system, study, and patient levels over the last four years. These efforts are one of the initial steps to fully realize the promise of personalized health care and provide increased patient benefit at less cost to society. Instead of simply acknowledging the problem, here we illuminate the collaborative and multilevel strategies that have been effective in delivering meaningful progress for patients.

Correlates of knowledge of clinical trials among U.S. adults: Findings from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about clinical trials affects efficient and equitable clinical trial recruitment and retention. This study explored correlates of clinical trial knowledge in a nationally representative sample of US adults.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, Cycle 4) were evaluated. There were 3,865 responses in the full dataset; 2,648 remained after eliminating respondents without complete data for all covariates of interest. Participants were asked, "How would you describe your level of knowledge about clinical trials?" The response options "know a little bit" and "know a lot" were combined and compared to the response option "don't know anything." Covariates of interest included patient-provider communication, history of medical conditions, eHealth use, knowledge of clinicaltrials.gov, prior invitation to join a clinical trial, and socio-demographic factors.

RESULTS

Participants with a history of cancer were 1.6 times more likely [CI 1.2, 2.2] to have knowledge of clinical trials. Participants who used electronic means to look for health information were 1.7 times more likely [CI 1.2, 2.4] to have knowledge of clinical trials. Participants who had heard of the website clinicaltrials.gov had 5.1 times greater odds of knowing about clinical trials [CI 2.6, 10.3] and 4.5 greater odds if they had been invited to participate in a clinical trial [CI 2.0, 9.8]. College graduates had higher odds than others.

CONCLUSION

Several factors affect clinical trial knowledge in US adults. Findings from this study may inform interventions to raise awareness about clinical trials and thereby, potentially improve enrollment.

Clinical Trial Participation: A Pilot Study of Patient-Identified Barriers

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial enrollment in the United States is lacking, particularly among older adult and ethnic and racial minority populations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to identify patient-related barriers to clinical trial participation using a mixed-methods patient survey and to offer insights to develop evidence-based implementation strategies to address these barriers.

METHODS

A retrospective survey was conducted of patients who were not interested in participating in a clinical trial to quantify the reasons these patients chose not to participate. Directed qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes that emerged from the write-in responses.

FINDINGS

The greatest patient-reported barriers were misperceptions about placebos, a desire to not feel like a human guinea pig, uncertainty surrounding clinical trial treatment effectiveness compared to standard care, and concerns about additional appointments or tests. Oncology nurses can address patient enrollment barriers by providing targeted education and participating in the informed consent process.

Factors associated with successful phase III trials for solid tumors: A systematic review

Background

It is known that the success rates of phase III trials for solid cancers are low. The aim of this study was to investigate factors related to trial design and operation that were associated with the probability of the success of phase III trials for solid cancers based on the latest comprehensive data.

Methods

Relevant clinical trials, started between September 2007 and December 2017, were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov. Then, variables related to the selected trials such as types of primary endpoint and duration of trial enrollment were collected from the literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on the collected data, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to find factors associated with the successful results.

Results

Four hundred phase III trials were found eligible for the study. Unsuccessful trials were 207 and successful trials were 193. As a result of multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors that presented a statistically significant relationship were primary endpoint (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.79 [95% CI: 1.59–4.89]), control arm (OR: 3.06 [95% CI: 1.39–6.73]), start year of trial (OR: 3.28 [95% CI: 1.87–5.77]), and duration of trial enrollment (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.60–0.99]).

Conclusion

Type of primary endpoints (time-to-event endpoints other than overall survival), control arm (treatments with lower evidence level, placebo or best supportive care), and duration of trial enrollment (faster enrollment speed) were associated with phase III trial success.

Using Patient-Generated Health Data From Twitter to Identify, Engage, and Recruit Cancer Survivors in Clinical Trials in Los Angeles County: Evaluation of a Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Failure to find and attract clinical trial participants remains a persistent barrier to clinical research. Researchers increasingly complement recruitment methods with social media-based methods. We hypothesized that user-generated data from cancer survivors and their family members and friends on the social network Twitter could be used to identify, engage, and recruit cancer survivors for cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aims to examine the feasibility of using user-reported health data from cancer survivors and family members and friends on Twitter in Los Angeles (LA) County to enhance clinical trial recruitment. We focus on 6 cancer conditions (breast cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer, and prostate cancer).

METHODS

The social media intervention involved monitoring cancer-specific posts about the 6 cancer conditions by Twitter users in LA County to identify cancer survivors and their family members and friends and contacting eligible Twitter users with information about open cancer trials at the University of Southern California (USC) Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center. We reviewed both retrospective and prospective data published by Twitter users in LA County between July 28, 2017, and November 29, 2018. The study enrolled 124 open clinical trials at USC Norris. We used descriptive statistics to report the proportion of Twitter users who were identified, engaged, and enrolled.

RESULTS

We analyzed 107,424 Twitter posts in English by 25,032 unique Twitter users in LA County for the 6 cancer conditions. We identified and contacted 1.73% (434/25,032) of eligible Twitter users (127/434, 29.3% cancer survivors; 305/434, 70.3% family members and friends; and 2/434, 0.5% Twitter users were excluded). Of them, 51.4% (223/434) were female and approximately one-third were male. About one-fifth were people of color, whereas most of them were White. Approximately one-fifth (85/434, 19.6%) engaged with the outreach messages (cancer survivors: 33/85, 38% and family members and friends: 52/85, 61%). Of those who engaged with the messages, one-fourth were male, the majority were female, and approximately one-fifth were people of color, whereas the majority were White. Approximately 12% (10/85) of the contacted users requested more information and 40% (4/10) set up a prescreening. Two eligible candidates were transferred to USC Norris for further screening, but neither was enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the potential of identifying and engaging cancer survivors and their family members and friends on Twitter. Optimization of downstream recruitment efforts such as screening for digital populations on social media may be required. Future research could test the feasibility of the approach for other diseases, locations, languages, social media platforms, and types of research involvement (eg, survey research). Computer science methods could help to scale up the analysis of larger data sets to support more rigorous testing of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03408561; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03408561.

Racial and ethnic enrollment disparities and demographic reporting requirements in acute leukemia clinical trials

Data regarding racial and ethnic enrollment diversity for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) clinical trials in the United States are limited, and little is known about the effect of federal reporting requirements instituted in the late 2000s. We examined demographic data reporting and enrollment diversity for ALL and AML trials in the United States from 2002 to 2017, as well as changes in reporting and diversity after reporting requirements were instituted. Of 223 AML trials and 97 ALL trials with results on ClinicalTrials.gov, 68 (30.5%) and 51 (52.6%) reported enrollment by both race and ethnicity. Among trials that reported race and ethnicity (AML, n = 6554; ALL, n = 4149), non-Hispanic (NH)-Black, NH-Native American, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients had significantly lower enrollment compared with NH-White patients after adjusting for race-ethnic disease incidence (AML odds ratio, 0.68, 0.31, 0.75, and 0.83, respectively; ALL odds ratio, 0.74, 0.27, 0.67, and 0.64; all, P ≤ .01). The proportion of trials reporting race increased significantly after implementation of the reporting requirements (44.2% to 60.2%; P = .02), but race-ethnicity reporting did not (34.8% to 38.6%; P = .57). Reporting proportions according to number of patients enrolled increased significantly after the reporting requirements were instituted (race, 51.7% to 72.7%; race-ethnicity, 39.5% to 45.4%; both, P < .001), and relative enrollment of NH-Black and Hispanic patients decreased (AML odds ratio, 0.79 and 0.77; ALL odds ratio, 0.35 and 0.25; both P ≤ .01). These data suggest that demographic enrollment reporting for acute leukemia trials is suboptimal, changes in diversity after the reporting requirements may be due to additional enrollment disparities that were previously unreported, and enrollment diversification strategies specific to acute leukemia care delivery are needed.

Exclusion criteria of breast cancer clinical trial protocols: a descriptive analysis

PURPOSE

3-8% of US adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial due to various barriers to enrollment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines.

METHODS

This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2004 and 2020. Exclusion criteria were abstracted using OnCore and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values included liver function tests and hematologic labs. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and prior cancer history. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from diagnosis or exacerbation-free.

RESULTS

102 protocols were eligible. Among liver laboratory values, bilirubin (78%) was included in most protocols ranging from institutional upper limit of normal (ULN) (9%) to 3xULN (2%), with 1.5xULN (56%) being most common. Similar variability was observed in alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count ranging from 500 μL (1%) to 1800 μL (1%), with 1500 μL (64%) being most common. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%), and a prior cancer (66%). The allowable timeframe varied between protocols for cardiovascular disease and prior cancer.

CONCLUSION

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across laboratory values and comorbid variables among protocols. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.

Expectations, experiences and preferences of patients and physicians in the informed consent process for clinical trials in oncology

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to explore (1) informed consent (IC) representations, level of understanding, needs, and factors that influence the willingness of cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (phase I) and (2) representations, experiences, and critical issues of physicians involved in the same process (phase II).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 cancer patients who had been asked to enroll in a phase II/III RCT (phase I). Two focus groups were conducted with 13 physicians enrolled in the same process (phase II). The content produced was analyzed through a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The themes that emerged in the first phase I were grouped into six categories: IC representation, randomization, experimentation, meeting with the physician, factors that influence the willingness to participate, and trial participants' needs. The themes emerged in the phase II were grouped into four: IC representation, critical issues of the IC, relationship, and recruitment of trial participants. Each theme is articulated into sub-themes and deeply discussed.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights (1) the gap between what is ethically demanded in a RCT consultation and the reality of the situation and (2) the difference in perceptions between patients and physicians with reference to the meaning, objectives, and level of understanding of IC.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5-7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80-91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75-4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2-49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.

Analysis of Population Differences in Digital Conversations About Cancer Clinical Trials: Advanced Data Mining and Extraction Study

Background

Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials for cancer treatment is essential for the development of treatments that are effective for all patients and for identifying potential differences in toxicity between different demographics. Mining of social media discussions about clinical trials has been used previously to identify patient barriers to enrollment in clinical trials; however, a comprehensive breakdown of sentiments and barriers by various racial and ethnic groups is lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study is to use an innovative methodology to analyze web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials and to identify and compare conversation topics, barriers, and sentiments between different racial and ethnic populations.

Methods

We analyzed 372,283 web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials, of which 179,339 (48.17%) of the discussions had identifiable race information about the individual posting the conversations. Using sophisticated machine learning software and analyses, we were able to identify key sentiments and feelings, topics of interest, and barriers to clinical trials across racial groups. The stage of treatment could also be identified in many of the discussions, allowing for a unique insight into how the sentiments and challenges of patients change throughout the treatment process for each racial group.

Results

We observed that only 4.01% (372,283/9,284,284) of cancer-related discussions referenced clinical trials. Within these discussions, topics of interest and identified clinical trial barriers discussed by all racial and ethnic groups throughout the treatment process included health care professional interactions, cost of care, fear, anxiety and lack of awareness, risks, treatment experiences, and the clinical trial enrollment process. Health care professional interactions, cost of care, and enrollment processes were notably discussed more frequently in minority populations. Other minor variations in the frequency of discussion topics between ethnic and racial groups throughout the treatment process were identified.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the power of digital search technology in health care research. The results are also valuable for identifying the ideal content and timing for the delivery of clinical trial information and resources for different racial and ethnic groups.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States

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.

Building a competitive infrastructure to support clinical research in healthcare institution

BACKGROUND

Clinical research is becoming increasingly popular in Europe at a growth rate much higher than expected, especially in Benelux. Although traditionally thought to be the purview of academic health centres, clinical research to evaluate new drugs, devices and medical practices is being done more and more in healthcare organizations with little or no academic affiliation.

METHODS

By managing a new infrastructure and centralizing resources and demands, clinical research unit (CRU) has become an effective mechanism for hospital research. The 'infrastructure' or CRU refers to the necessary resources and how the CRU is organized and communicates operationally to conduct clinical research within the institution. The creation of a new CRU within the Robert Schuman Hospital in Luxembourg is described in this article.

RESULTS

This article discusses the concrete steps and basic elements such as patient-centric and hospital approaches needed to create and structure a CRU to provide academic or industry-sponsored research support in clinical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Some infrastructure challenges (insufficient engagement, regulatory and administrative barriers) and possible courses of action (standardized procedures, training and centralization) will be discussed.

Disparities in phase 1 cancer clinical trial enrollment

BACKGROUND

Phase 1 trials are increasingly important in the molecularly driven era of oncology, but few studies have examined phase 1 participation disparities. The authors of this study investigated factors associated with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

METHODS

They authors conducted a cross-sectional study using serial samples of patients age ≥18 years enrolling on cancer trials from October 2011 to November 2014 at an academic cancer center. They used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to analyze sociodemographic and clinical associations with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 3103 patients enrolled in cancer trials, 2657 unique patients participated in phase 1/2/3 trials. For patients enrolled in phase 1 (n = 1401) versus phase 2/3 (n = 1256) trials, we found no significant differences by age, insurance status, marital status, and income. Overall, 1216 (93%) White, 72 (6%) Asian, and 21 (2%) Black patients enrolled on phase 1 trials, whereas 1068 (93%) White, 40 (3%) Asian, and 43 (4%) Black patients enrolled on phase 2/3 trials. Adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year, compared with White patients, Black patients had lower phase 1 enrollment (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.82), as did Hispanic/Latino (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79) and male patients (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94). Asian patients had higher phase 1 enrollment (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.88-2.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in phase 1 versus phase 2/3 cancer clinical trial enrollment underscore the urgent need for interventions addressing inequities in early-phase trial participation.

LAY SUMMARY

Phase 1 trials are of increasing importance in oncology. The authors of the study analyzed all patients enrolling on cancer clinical trials at a large academic cancer center from October 2011 to November 2014. Among the 2657 trial participants, when age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year were taken into account, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and male patients were less likely to enroll on phase 1 trials versus phase 2/3 trials. These findings suggest a need for targeted interventions to improve access to and education about phase 1 trials for Black and Hispanic/Latino patients.

Enhancing Recruitment and Retention of Minority Populations for Clinical Research in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Well-designed clinical research needs to obtain information that is applicable to the general population. However, most current studies fail to include substantial cohorts of racial/ethnic minority populations. Such underrepresentation may lead to delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis of disease, wide application of approved interventions without appropriate knowledge of their usefulness in certain populations, and development of recommendations that are not broadly applicable.Goals: To develop best practices for recruitment and retention of racial/ethnic minorities for clinical research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.Methods: The American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2019. This included an international interprofessional group from academia, industry, the NIH, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with expertise ranging from clinical and biomedical research to community-based participatory research methods and patient advocacy. Workshop participants addressed historical and current mistrust of scientific research, systemic bias, and social and structural barriers to minority participation in clinical research. A literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to support conclusions. The search was not a systematic review of the literature.Results: Barriers at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and federal/policy levels were identified as limiting to minority participation in clinical research. Through the use of a multilevel framework, workshop participants proposed evidence-based solutions to the identified barriers.Conclusions: To date, minority participation in clinical research is not representative of the U.S. and global populations. This American Thoracic Society research statement identifies potential evidence-based solutions by applying a multilevel framework that is anchored in community engagement methods and patient advocacy.

An ex vivo model of human skin photoaging induced by UVA radiation compatible with summer exposure in Brazil

Skin is the largest body organ and can be affected by several factors, such as ultraviolet (UV) radiation. UV radiation is subdivided in UVA, UVB and UVC according to the radiation wavelength. UVC radiation does not cross the ozone layer; UVB cause DNA damage and is closely related to carcinogenesis; UVA radiation penetrates deeply into the skin, reaching epidermis and dermis and is considered the main promoter of skin aging, known as photoaging. In order to understand photoaging mechanisms and propose efficient therapies, several photoaging study models have been developed, each with benefits and limitations, but most of them use very high doses of UVA radiation, which is not compatible with our daily sun exposure. The objective of this work was to develop a human ex vivo photoaging model induced by UVA exposure compatible to a summer in Brazil. For this, human skin fragments were obtained from healthy donors who underwent otoplasty surgery and skin explants were prepared and placed in plates, with the epidermis facing upwards. Skin explants were exposed to UVA at 16 J/cm² carried out by protocols of 2 or 4 exposures. Results showed an increase of oxidative damage, inflammatory cells, collagenolytic and elastolytic MMPs expression as well as a decrease of elastin expression, suggesting that the experimental model based on skin explants is able to evaluate UVA-induced aging in human skin.

Randomized trial of a web-based nurse education intervention to increase discussion of clinical trials

Background

Clinical trials are a critical source of evidence for oncology care, yet very few patients participate. Among healthcare providers, nurses spend the most time with cancer patients and are the most highly trusted professionals. We developed and evaluated an educational program for oncology nurses targeting knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and perceived norms to facilitate discussion about clinical trials and support patient decision making.

Methods

A nationwide sample of oncology nurses were randomly assigned to receive general clinical trials education delivered as text (attention control) vs. tailored video vignettes (intervention) in a web-based continuing education program. Participants completed a baseline assessment and follow up assessments immediately after the educational program and three months later. The primary outcome was intention to discuss clinical trials with patients. Secondary outcomes were knowledge and attitudes about clinical trials, self-efficacy, and perceived norms.

Results

1393 nurses enrolled and completed the educational program and post-intervention assessment (720 control, 673 video). Both text education and tailored video education increased intention to discuss clinical trials with patients, with a greater effect in the video group (p < .0001). Likewise, knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms were all improved with education in both groups, and the magnitude of benefit was greater (p < .001) for the video group in all outcomes except knowledge.

Conclusion

A one-time online educational program for oncology nurses improves knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and intention to engage patients in discussions about clinical trials. A tailored video format was associated with a greater effect than standard text only material.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer

PURPOSE

There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers.

METHODS

Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined.

RESULTS

The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

Disparities in Pediatric Oncology: The 21st Century Opportunity to Improve Outcomes for Children and Adolescents With Cancer

Adult cancer disparities have been documented for decades and continue to persist despite clinical advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. Pediatric cancer survival has improved significantly in the United States for the past 5 decades to over 80%; however, disparate outcomes among children and adolescents with cancer still affect many populations in the United States and globally, including racial and ethnic minorities, populations with low socioeconomic status, and residents of underserved areas. To achieve equitable outcomes for all children and adolescents with cancer, it is imperative that concerted multilevel approaches be carried out to understand and address health disparities and to ensure access to high-quality cancer care. Addressing social determinants of health, such as removing barriers to health care access and ensuring access to social supports, can reduce pediatric cancer disparities. Nevertheless, public health policy, health system interventions, and innovative delivery of evidence-based services are critically needed. Partnerships among patients, caregivers, and health care providers, and among health care, academic, and governmental institutions, have a pivotal role in reducing cancer disparities and improving outcomes in the 21st century.

Navigating choice in the face of uncertainty: using a theory informed qualitative approach to identifying potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy trial

OBJECTIVES

Bench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.

DESIGN

We used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients' hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.

PARTICIPANTS

Canadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Using the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration: NCT03765177; Pre-results.

The Feasibility and Effects of Qigong Intervention (Mind-Body Exercise) in Cancer Patients With Insomnia: A Pilot Qualitative Study

Background:

Up to 80% of cancer patients experience insomnia that significantly affects their quality of life. This pilot qualitative study investigated the feasibility and effects of a 3-week Qigong (mind-body exercise) intervention with a 1-week follow-up in cancer patients experiencing insomnia.

Methods:

Cancer patients with insomnia who had completed radiotherapy or chemotherapy treatment and/or were at least 8 weeks post-cancer-related surgery were recruited. Primary outcomes were feasibility outcomes, which included recruitment, retention, attendance, completion of assessment, adverse events and participant feedback via a questionnaire and focus group/individual interview. Secondary outcomes on insomnia severity and sleep quality were measured using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline, mid, post-intervention and follow-up.

Results:

Seven participants were recruited and two withdrew from the study. The participant retention rate was 71.4% with an overall attendance rate of more than 84% and participants were able to complete all required assessments. An adverse event relating to the worsening of existing musculoskeletal condition was reported. Qualitative analysis of participant feedback identified 4 emerging themes: (1) experience from Qigong intervention; (2) class preferences; (3) barriers to participation; and (4) recommendation for improvement. Participants reported increased relaxation, improved sleep and energy level, better upper body flexibility and reduced stress. Both ISI and PSQI scores improved significantly (P < .05).

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated that it is feasible to employ the current clinical trial design using Qigong intervention on insomnia in cancer patients. Preliminary data suggest that the intervention may improve sleep outcomes, however, these findings need to be confirmed by future robust randomized controlled trials.

Trial registration:

The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001670268) http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618001670268.aspxon10October2018.

Ethics framework for treatment use of investigational drugs

BACKGROUND

Expanded access is the use of investigational drugs (IDs) outside of clinical trials. Generally it is performed in patients with serious and life-threatening diseases who cannot be treated satisfactorily with authorized drugs. Legal regulations of expanded access to IDs have been introduced among others in the USA, the European Union (EU), Canada and Australia. In addition, in the USA an alternative to expanded access is treatment under the Right-to-Try law. However, the treatment use of IDs is inherently associated with a number of ethically relevant problems.

MAIN TEXT

The objective of this article is to present a coherent framework made up of eight requirements which have to be met for any treatment use of an ID to be ethical. These include a justified need for the use of an ID, no threat to clinical development of the ID, adequate scientific evidence to support the treatment, patient's benefit as the primary goal of the use of an ID, informed decision of a patient, fair access of patients to IDs, independent review, as well as the dissemination of treatment results.

CONCLUSIONS

While this framework is essentially consistent with the legal regulations of expanded access of the USA, the EU, Canada and Australia, it is substantially wider in scope because it addresses some important issues that are not covered by the regulations. Overall, the framework that we developed minimizes the risks and threats, and maximizes potential benefits to each of the four key stakeholders involved in the treatment use of IDs including patients, doctors, drug manufacturers, and society at large.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the importance of clinical trials for finding a safe and effective vaccine to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Although communication about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy were challenges long before COVID-19, the twin facts of a pandemic and an "infodemic" of health information, misinformation, and disinformation have raised new challenges for vaccine-related communication and decision-making. The goal of this commentary is to highlight strategies to improve communication and decision-making for adults considering participation in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. First, I present a general conceptual model for clinical trial participation that can be applied to various vaccine and other clinical trial contexts. Next, I introduce the ASK (Assume, Seek, Know) approach for enhancing clinical trial participation: (1) assume that all patients will want to know their options, (2) seek the counsel of stakeholders, and (3) know your numbers. The ideas presented in this commentary are intended to enhance vaccine-specific clinical trial communication, decision-making, and literacy, while dually offering strategies and resources that may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake over time.

Utilization of COVID-19 Treatments and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Cancer: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study

Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Trial Execution at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Interventions designed to limit the spread of COVID-19 are having profound effects on the delivery of healthcare, 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 (DFCI) 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/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 two-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 half the pre-pandemic rate. The median number of investigational prescriptions shipped to patients increased from 0-74 (range: 22-107) per week from March-June 2020. The median number of telemedicine appointments increased from 0-107 (range: 33-267) per week from March-June 2020. Research biopsies and blood collections decreased dramatically after DFCI 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.

Thoracic Radiation Oncology Clinical Trial Accrual and Reasons for Nonenrollment: Results of a Large, Prospective, Multiyear Analysis

PURPOSE

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine, yet few patients with cancer ultimately enroll. Here we examine patients screened for thoracic radiation oncology clinical trials to better understand enrollment trends.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A prospective database tracking screening and enrollment for patients referred for thoracic radiation oncology consultation at our institution from 2016 to 2019 was evaluated. Proportional enrollment rates, patient and disease characteristics, self-reported socioeconomic factors, and reasons for ineligibility or nonenrollment across 17 radiation therapy trials were compared.

RESULTS

Enrollment data on 2372 patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 40.0% (949) were deemed "not eligible" (NE) for any trial or were unwilling to be further screened. Reasons for ineligibility included stage (44%), histology (13%), radiation therapy not indicated (12%), patient decision (7%), and enrollment in a competing medical or surgical oncology trial (5%). The remaining 60.0% (1423) were "potentially eligible" (PE) for one or more trials. Most had non-small cell lung cancer (71%) or esophageal cancer (16%), and there were significantly fewer stage IV PE (29%) versus NE (49%) patients (P < .0001). Of 2372 patients, 281 (11.9%) enrolled. Notable reasons for nonenrollment were inclusion and exclusion criteria (58%), patients declining enrollment (14%), and physician decision (5%). The proportion of white patients was higher in the PE versus NE group (82.5% vs 75.8%; P < .001). Additionally, white race (87.9% vs 81.2%; P = .008), English language preference (96.4% vs 92.9%; P = .032), and non-Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (94.0% vs 90.1%; P = .042) were significantly different in enrolled versus nonenrolled PE patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12% of patients screened for radiation therapy trials ultimately enrolled, and more than two-thirds had no trial available or were found ineligible. In addition, 19% of potential eligible patients did not enroll because the patient or physician declined. Future trials may benefit from pragmatic designs with more inclusive enrollment criteria and multidisciplinary engagement of referring providers.

Digitizing clinical trials

Clinical trials are a fundamental tool used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new drugs and medical devices and other health system interventions. The traditional clinical trials system acts as a quality funnel for the development and implementation of new drugs, devices and health system interventions. The concept of a "digital clinical trial" involves leveraging digital technology to improve participant access, engagement, trial-related measurements, and/or interventions, enable concealed randomized intervention allocation, and has the potential to transform clinical trials and to lower their cost. In April 2019, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) held a workshop bringing together experts in clinical trials, digital technology, and digital analytics to discuss strategies to implement the use of digital technologies in clinical trials while considering potential challenges. This position paper builds on this workshop to describe the current state of the art for digital clinical trials including (1) defining and outlining the composition and elements of digital trials; (2) describing recruitment and retention using digital technology; (3) outlining data collection elements including mobile health, wearable technologies, application programming interfaces (APIs), digital transmission of data, and consideration of regulatory oversight and guidance for data security, privacy, and remotely provided informed consent; (4) elucidating digital analytics and data science approaches leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms; and (5) setting future priorities and strategies that should be addressed to successfully harness digital methods and the myriad benefits of such technologies for clinical research.

Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices

Background

Few community urologists offer cancer patients the opportunity to participate in cancer clinical trials, despite national guidelines that recommend it, depriving an estimated 260,000 urological cancer patients of guideline-concordant care each year. Existing strategies to increase urologists’ offer of clinical trials are designed for resource-rich environments and are not feasible for many community urologists. We sought to design an implementation intervention for dissemination in under-resourced community urology practices and to compare its acceptability, appropriateness and adoption appeal among trial-naïve and trial-experienced urologists.

Methods

We used a design-for-dissemination approach, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel, to match determinants of the clinical trial offer to theoretically informed implementation strategies. We described the implementation intervention in evaluation workshops offered at urology professional society meetings. We surveyed participants to assess the implementation intervention’s acceptability and appropriateness using validated instruments. We also measured adoption appeal, intention to adopt and previous trial offer.

Results

Our design process resulted in a multi-modal implementation intervention, comprised of multiple implementation strategies designed to address six domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Evaluation workshops delivered at four meetings, convened five separate professional societies. Sixty-one percent of those offered an opportunity to participate in the implementation intervention indicated intention to adopt. Average implementation intervention acceptability and appropriateness ratings were 4.4 and 4.4 (out of 5), respectively. Acceptability scores were statistically significantly higher among those offering trials compared to those not (p = 0.03). Appropriateness scores did not differ between those offering trials and those not (p = 0.24). After urologists ranked their top three innovation attributes, 43% of urologists included practice reputation in their top three reasons for offering clinical trials; 30% listed practice differentiation among their top three reasons. No statistically significant differences were found between those who offered trials and those who did not among any of the innovation attributes.

Conclusions

LEARN|INFORM|RECRUIT is a promising implementation intervention to address low accrual to clinical trials, poised for implementation and effectiveness testing. The implementation intervention is appealing to its target audience and may have equal uptake among trial-naïve and trial-experienced practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3658-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.