The attitudes of oncology physicians and nurses toward phase I, II, and III cancer clinical trials

Intensive care nurses' perceptions of various ethics concerns affecting clinical research

BACKGROUND

Intensive-care unit (ICU) nurses have an important role in the recruitment of patients for scientific research and in the performance of clinical research.

AIM

A study was conducted to examine ICU nurses' perceptions of ethics-related aspects of ICU-based research. The study focused on nurse attitudes and knowledge related to clinical research, with special emphasis on perceptions of the informed-consent process in ICU research.

METHOD

The study applied a descriptive qualitative approach, involving semi-structured group interviews and theme-based inductive content analysis. Subjects were ICU nurses (n = 28) at a university hospital ICU who had experience with research protocols applied in that unit.

FINDINGS

The nurses had mainly positive perceptions of clinical studies. They found research beneficial for future patients and for society. The nurses considered the information given to them about the studies inadequate. They were concerned about the fact that the consent for research is almost always obtained at the beginning of the ICU care, when patients and relatives are still in the crisis period. This limits the possibility of understanding and assimilating the information provided on the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of ICU nurses in clinical studies should be more prominent and taken into account in the planning of ICU studies.

Physician and nurse beliefs of phase 1 trials in pediatric oncology

BACKGROUND

In order to improve the survival of children with cancer, novel therapies must be identified. Promising agents are tested in phase 1 trials in order to identify appropriate dosing and describe toxicity in children. The identification and referral of candidate patients for phase 1 trials rely heavily on medical providers who must balance their own perceptions of phase 1 trials with the desires and willingness of the patient and his/her family.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the present study was to evaluate and compare physician and nurse perceptions regarding the beliefs, expectations, and perceived benefits of phase 1 clinical trials.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 21 questions was sent to 419 physicians and nurses practicing pediatric oncology at 30 different institutions. With the exception of 10 demographic questions, items were either rank ordered or rated on 5-point Likert scales.

RESULTS

Ninety-four physicians and 122 nurses completed the online survey. Physicians and nurses differed in their knowledge of the goals and medical effects of phase 1 clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and nurses hold positive beliefs regarding phase 1 clinical trials and support their role in the treatment of children with cancer. Education is necessary to increase nurses' knowledge of the goals and outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

These findings suggest that continued education of nurses as well as physicians about the goals, execution, and monitoring of phase 1 therapy would be worthwhile.

Nurses' Attitudes Toward Clinical Research: Experience of the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Trials

OBJECTIVES

To understand factors affecting nurses' attitudes toward the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest trials and association with approach/consent rates.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of pediatric/cardiac intensive care nurses' perceptions of the trials.

SETTING

Study was conducted at 16 of 38 self-selected study sites.

SUBJECTS

Pediatric and cardiac intensive care nurses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was the proportion of nurses with positive perceptions, as defined by agree or strongly agree with the statement "I am happy to take care of a Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest patient". Associations between perceptions and study approach/consent rates were also explored. Of 2,241 nurses invited, 1,387 (62%) completed the survey and 77% reported positive perceptions of the trials. Nurses, who felt positively about the scientific question, the study team, and training received, were more likely to have positive perceptions of the trials (p < 0.001). Nurses who had previously cared for a research patient had significantly more positive perceptions of Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest compared with those who had not (79% vs 54%; p < 0.001). Of the 754 nurses who cared for a Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest patient, 82% had positive perceptions, despite 86% reporting it required more work. Sixty-nine percent believed that hypothermia reduces brain injury and mortality; sites had lower consent rates when their nurses believed that hypothermia was beneficial. Institution-specific approach rates were positively correlated with nurses' perceptions of institutional support for the trial (r = 0.54; p = 0.04), ICU support (r = 0.61; p = 0.02), and the importance of conducting the trial in children (r = 0.61; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of nurses had positive perceptions of the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest trials. Institutional, colleague, and study team support and training were contributing factors. Despite increased work, nurses remained enthusiastic demonstrating that studies with intensive bedside nursing procedures are feasible. Institutions whose nurses believed hypothermia was beneficial had lower consent rates, suggesting that educating nurses on study rationale and equipoise may enhance study participation.

Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012

IMPORTANCE

Many patients and physicians assume that the safety and effectiveness of newly approved therapeutic agents is well understood; however, the strength of the clinical trial evidence supporting approval decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pivotal efficacy trials were classified according to the following design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point. Surrogate outcomes were defined as any end point using a biomarker expected to predict clinical benefit. The number of patients, trial duration, and trial completion rates were also determined.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 188 novel therapeutic agents for 206 indications on the basis of 448 pivotal efficacy trials. The median number of pivotal trials per indication was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2.5), although 74 indications (36.8%) were approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial. Nearly all trials were randomized (89.3% [95% CI, 86.4%-92.2%]), double-blinded (79.5% [95% CI, 75.7%-83.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]). The median number of patients enrolled per indication among all pivotal trials was 760 (interquartile range, 270-1550). At least 1 pivotal trial with a duration of 6 months or greater supported the approval of 68 indications (33.8% [95% CI, 27.2%-40.4%]). Pivotal trials using surrogate end points as their primary outcome formed the exclusive basis of approval for 91 indications (45.3% [95% CI, 38.3%-52.2%]), clinical outcomes for 67 (33.3% [95% CI, 26.8%-39.9%]), and clinical scales for 36 (17.9% [95% CI, 12.6%-23.3%]). Trial features differed by therapeutic and indication characteristics, such as therapeutic area, expected length of treatment, orphan status, and accelerated approval.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The quality of clinical trial evidence used by the FDA as the basis for recent approvals of novel therapeutic agents varied widely across indications. This variation has important implications for patients and physicians as they make decisions about the use of newly approved therapeutic agents.

Physician perceptions and beliefs of phase I trials in pediatric oncology

The identification and referral of candidate patients for phase I trials relies heavily on pediatric oncologists who must balance their own perceptions of phase I trials with the desires of the patient and his/her family. A survey was sent to 419 physicians practicing pediatric oncology at 30 different institutions. Results indicated significant differences between physicians who practiced at institutions that participated in phase I consortia versus those who did not. The findings of the survey may be used to enhance the design and execution of phase I trials and to educate oncologists about the goals of phase I trials.

Evaluation of patient enrollment in oncology phase I clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

For anticancer drug development, it is crucial that patients participate in early-phase clinical trials. The main aim of this study was to gain insight into the motivations and other variables influencing patients in their decision to participate in phase I oncology trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a period of 25 months, all patients who were informed about (specific) phase I trials in our cancer center were retrospectively included in this study. Data on providing informed consent and final phase I enrollment were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 365 patients, with a median age of 59 years and a median World Health Organization performance status score of 1, were evaluated. The majority of patients (71%) were pretreated with systemic therapy, with a median of two lines. After specific study information had been given, 145 patients (40%) declined informed consent, 54% of them mainly because of low expectations regarding treatment benefits and concerns about potential side effects. Patients who had received previous systemic therapy consented more frequently than others. After initial consent, 61 patients (17%) still did not receive study treatment, mostly because of secondary withdrawal of consent or rapid clinical deterioration prior to first dosing.

DISCUSSION

After specific referral to our hospital for participation in early clinical trials, only 44% of all patients who were informed about a specific phase I trial eventually participated. Reasons for both participation and nonparticipation were diverse. Patient participation rates could be improved by forming an experienced and dedicated study team.