Screen Failure Rates in Contemporary Randomized Clinical Phase II/III Therapeutic Trials in Genitourinary Malignancies

Screen Failures in Clinical Trials in Retina

PURPOSE

Disparities in clinical trials are a major problem because of significant underrepresentation of certain gender, racial, and ethnic groups. Several factors including stringent eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies hinder our understanding of retinal disease. Thus, we aimed to study the various reasons of screen failures and specific patient and study characteristics among screen failures.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective study.

METHODS

Screening data of 87 trials from 6 centers were analyzed. Study characteristics (disease studied, phase of trial, and route of drug administration) and patient demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and employment status) were compared among different causes of screen failures. Screen failures were broadly classified into 6 categories: exclusion because of vision-based criteria, exclusion because of imaging findings, exclusion because of other factors, patient-related criteria, physician-related criteria, and miscellaneous. Descriptive statistics, Pearson chi-square test, and analysis of variance were used for statistical analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of various reasons for screen failures in multiple trials and its trend among different study and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 87 trials and 962 patients, 465 (48.2%) patients were successfully randomized and 497 (51.8%) patients were classified as screen failures. The trials were conducted for various retinal diseases. Mean age was 76.50 ± 10.45 years and 59.4% were females. Predominantly White patients (93.4%) and unemployed/retired patients (66.6%) were screened. Of the 497 screen failures, most were because of patients not meeting inclusion criteria of imaging findings (n = 221 [44.5%]) followed by inclusion of vision-based criteria (n = 73 [14.7%]), exclusion because of other factors (n = 75 [15.1%]), patient-related (n = 34 [6.8%]), physician-related (n = 28 [5.6%]), and miscellaneous reasons (n = 39 [7.8%]). Reason for screen failure was not available for 27 (5.4%) patients. A higher proportion of patients screened for surgical trials (15%) declined to participate in the study compared with noninvasive trials involving topical drugs and photobiomodulation (0%) (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients not meeting the imaging and vision-cased criteria were the most common reasons for screen failures. White patients and unemployed patients predominantly participated in clinical trials. Patients are more inclined to continue participation in noninvasive clinical trials compared with surgical trials. Better recruitment strategies and careful consideration of study criteria can aid in decreasing the rate of screen failures.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Screen Failures and Causes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Randomized Controlled Trials: A Study of 16 913 Screened Patients

INTRODUCTION

While recruitment rates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials are continuously decreasing, the underlying reasons are likely multifactorial but remain poorly defined. Screen failure (SF) proportions and causes have not been extensively explored in IBD.

AIM

We assessed SF proportions and underlying SF reasons in IBD phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

METHODS

We analyzed SF-related data from 17 randomized controlled phase 2 or 3 IBD trials. Twelve trials were in ulcerative colitis (UC) and 5 trials were in Crohn's disease (CD) operated by a single contract research organization, IQVIA. Differences between patient groups were tested for significance by Mann-Whitney and Fisher's tests when appropriate.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 11 161 patients with UC and 5752 patients with CD. The mean SF proportion was 0.43 per trial in UC. The primary reason for SFs in UC was not meeting the overall (modified) Mayo score inclusion threshold and/or the endoscopic subscore of at least 2 (33.8% of all SF). In CD clinical trials, the mean SF proportion was at 0.53. The primary cause for SFs was not meeting the CDAI eligibility criteria (23.1% of all SFs). SF proportions were significantly higher in CD versus UC trials (P = .027). Clostridium difficile or any other intestinal infection and not meeting tuberculosis screening criteria were other major reasons for SFs both in UC and CD.

CONCLUSION

High SF proportion in IBD clinical trials, particularly for CD studies, pose obstacles to patient recruitment. While underlying causes are diverse, arbitrarily defined clinical and/or endoscopic eligibility criteria remain the major limiting factors.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data

Objectives

To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure).

Design

Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data.

Setting

Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions.

Participants

Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage.

Main outcome measures

For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition.

Results

In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13).

Conclusions

Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO CRD42018048202.

Analysis of Clinical Trial Screen Failures in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases [IBD]: Real World Results from the International Organization for the study of IBD

BACKGROUND

Recruitment for randomized controlled trials [RCTs] in inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] has substantially dropped over time. This study aimed to assess reasons why IBD patients are not included in sponsored multicentre phase IIb-III RCTs.

METHODS

All IOIBD members [n = 58] were invited to participate. We divided barriers to participation as follows: [1] reasons patients with active IBD were not deemed appropriate for an RCT; [2] reasons qualified patients did not wish to participate; and [3] reasons for screen failure [SF] in patients agreeing to participate. We assess these in a 4-week prospective study including, consecutively, all patients with symptomatic disease for whom a treatment change was required. In addition, we performed a 6-month retrospective study to further evaluate reasons for SF.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients (60 male [56.6%], 63 Crohn's disease [CD] [59.4%]), from ten centres across the world, were included in the prospective study. An RCT has not been proposed to 65 of them [mainly due to eligibility criteria]. Of the 41 patients to whom an RCT was offered, eight refused [mainly due to reluctance to receive placebo] and 28 agreed to participate. Among these 28 patients, five failed their screening and 23 were finally included in an RCT. A total of 107 patients (61 male [57%], 67 CD [62.6%]), from 13 centres worldwide, were included in our retrospective study of SFs. The main reason was insufficient disease activity.

CONCLUSION

This first multicentre study analysing reasons for non-enrolment in IBD RCTs shows that we lose patients at each step. Eligibility criteria, the risk of placebo assignment, and insufficient disease activity were part of the main barriers.

The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to outline the use of population and disease registries for clinical trial pre-screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search was conducted in the time period of January 2014 to December 2022 in three databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. References were screened using the Rayyan software, firstly based on titles and abstracts only, and secondly through full text review. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the List of Included Studies and quality Assurance in Review tool, enabling inclusion of publications of only moderate to high quality.

RESULTS

The search originally identified 1430 citations, but only 24 studies were included, reporting the use of population and/or disease registries for trial pre-screening. Nine disease domains were represented, with 54% of studies using registries based in the USA, and 62.5% of the studies using national registries. Half of the studies reported usage for drug trials, and over 478,679 patients were identified through registries in this review. Main advantages of the pre-screening methodology were reduced financial burden and time reduction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The use of registries for trial pre-screening increases reproducibility of the pre-screening process across trials and sites, allowing for implementation and improvement of a quality assurance process. Pre-screening strategies seem under-reported, and we encourage more trials to use and describe their pre-screening processes, as there is a need for standardized methodological guidelines.

The MATE trial: a multicentre, mixed-methodology, pilot, randomised controlled trial in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

In healthcare research investigating complex interventions, gaps in understanding of processes can be filled by using qualitative methods alongside a quantitative approach. The aim of this mixed-methods pilot trial was to provide feasibility evidence comparing two treatment regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) to inform a future large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

Forty-four treatment-naïve nAMD patients were followed over 24 months and randomised to one of two treatment regimens: standard care (SC) or treat and extend (T&E). The primary objective evaluated feasibility of the MATE trial via evaluations of screening logs for recruitment rates, nonparticipation and screen fails, whilst qualitative in-depth interviews with key study staff evaluated the recruitment phase and running of the trial. The secondary objective assessed changes in visual acuity and central retinal thickness (CRT) between the two treatment arms.

RESULTS

The overall recruitment rate was 3.07 participants per month with a 40.8% non-participation rate, 18.51% screen-failure rate and 15% withdrawal/non-completion rate. Key themes in the recruitment phase included human factors, protocol-related issues, recruitment processes and challenges. Both treatment regimens showed a trend towards a visual acuity gain at month 12 which was not maintained at month 24, whilst CRT reduced similarly in both regimens over the same time period. These were achieved with one less treatment following a T&E regimen.

CONCLUSION

This mixed-methodology, pilot RCT achieved its pre-defined recruitment, nonparticipation and screen failure rates, thus deeming it a success. With some minor protocol amendments, progression to a large-scale RCT will be achievable.

Eligibility Criteria and Endpoints in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Trials

OBJECTIVES

Treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often compared across trials, but trial eligibility criteria and endpoints differ. In an effort to better align trials, the Definition for the Assessment of Time to event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project published recommendations in 2015 to be used in mRCC clinical trial design. We analyzed mRCC trial criteria to determine if DATECAN's recommendations were followed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared eligibility criteria across 29 phase 3 mRCC trials conducted between 2003 and 2019. We then evaluated endpoints used in 10 phase 3 trials activated between 2015 and 2019 to determine their compliance with DATECAN's recommendations.

RESULTS

Among the 29 trials, performance status, renal function, and disease characteristics differed in terms of requirements and measures used. In terms of endpoints, the 10 trials did not entirely follow DATECAN's recommendations. In total, 7/10 trials' primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as recommended; 4/9 trials used PFS as an endpoint but did not publish their definition of PFS, and the 5 that did, included "death from any cause" instead of DATECAN's recommendation of "death from kidney cancer."

CONCLUSIONS

Key eligibility criteria were somewhat inconsistent across the phase 3 mRCC trials studied. Endpoints in the newer trials did not align with DATECAN's recommendations. Not only is greater standardization needed to facilitate meta-analyses and cross-trial comparisons, but as evident from lack of adherence to DATECAN's recommendations, greater promotion and adoption of recommendations are needed to better harmonize trial design.

Factors influencing recruitment and retention of participants in clinical studies conducted at a tertiary referral center: A five-year audit

Introduction:

A key determinant of the success of any study is the recruitment and subsequent retention of participants. Screen failure and dropouts impact both the scientific validity and financial viability of any study. We carried out this audit with the objective of evaluating the recruitment and retention of participants in clinical studies conducted over the last five years at our center.

Methods:

Studies completed between 2014 and 2018 at our center were included. Screening ledgers and study trackers were hand searched for screen failures and dropouts. Four pre-identified predictors were evaluated – risk as per the classification of Indian Council of Medical Research 2017 Ethical Guideline, nature of funding, study design, and nature of participants. Association of the predictors with screen failures and dropouts was determined using crude odds ratios along with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were done at 5% significance using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results:

A total of n = 19 completed studies had n = 2567 screened and n = 2442 enrolled participants with a screen failure and dropout rate of 5% and 4%, respectively. We found 59% screen failures due to abnormal laboratory values. The main reasons for dropouts were lost to follow-up 86 (88%). High-risk and interventional studies were the predictors for both screen failures and dropouts, but pharmaceutical industry-funded studies and healthy participants were predictors for only screen failures.

Conclusion:

Risk, funding, study design, and nature of participants are important to be considered while planning studies to minimize screen failures and dropouts.

Enhancing the Informed Consent Process Using Shared Decision Making and Consent Refusal Data from the CLEAR III Trial

BACKGROUND

The process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments.

METHODS

To evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor-patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared.

RESULTS

During the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion.

CONCLUSION

The informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.

Real-world evidence in rheumatic diseases: relevance and lessons learnt

An emerging trend in the medical literature, including the Rheumatology literature, is that of accumulating large, multicentric, multi-national data based on registries of patients seen in real life situations. Such real-world evidence (RWE) may help provide valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of disease in unselected patients seen in daily practice, including patients belonging to vulnerable populations such as extremes of age, during pregnancy and lactation. Evidences gathered from real life practice settings can help understand drug prescription patterns, including adherence to treatment guidelines, cost-effectiveness of therapy, and real-life long-term outcomes, and adverse effects of treatment with particular medications. Registry-based data also helps analyze comorbidities in patients with rheumatic diseases, and their impact on quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, a randomized controlled trial (RCT), or systematic reviews of multiple, homogenous RCTs, have been considered the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, and RWE does, at times, provide differing viewpoints from the results of particular drugs in clinical trial settings. Therefore, in the present day, it is prudent to consider the complementary nature of information derived from RWE to that obtained from rigorous, clinical trial settings. Future guidelines for disease management may consider it relevant to include information from RWE in addition to that available from clinical trials, to help devise management guidelines that are harmonious with routine practice settings.