Patient perceptions concerning clinical trials in oncology patients

Understanding of Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer and Their Relatives

Importance

Clinical trials are vital for advancing cancer treatments and improving patient outcomes. Understanding the factors that influence participants' decision-making is critical for enhancing trial recruitment.

Objective

To evaluate the attitudes of patients with cancer and their relatives toward clinical trial participation, identifying key barriers and motivators that affect their willingness to engage in such trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted between April 2020 and April 2021. Face-to-face questionnaires were administered by physicians across 6 tertiary hospital medical oncology departments in Turkey. Adults with cancer and their relatives were recruited. Data were analyzed from April to December 2021.

Exposure

Participants' knowledge, perceptions, and motivations regarding clinical trial participation were assessed through a structured questionnaire.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants' demographic information, their willingness to participate in clinical trials, their perceptions about the clinical trial participation, and the facilitators and barriers to participation.

Results

A total of 978 participants were surveyed, with a median (range) age of 52 (18-82) years; 485 (49.6%) were male and 479 (49.0%) female. Of these, 578 (59.1%) were patients with cancer and 382 (39.1%) family members. Prior clinical trial experience was reported by 174 participants (17.8%), and 428 (43.8%) expressed a willingness to participate in clinical trials. Participants well-informed about clinical trials showed higher willingness (50 of 87 [57.5%] very willing) compared with those with no knowledge (27 of 303 [8.9%] very willing) (χ2 = 275.095; P < .001). Greater willingness was observed in participants from less developed cities compared with the most developed cities (88 of 321 [27.4%] vs 94 of 615 [15.3%]; χ2 = 21.093; P < .001), in individuals with a high school degree or greater compared with those with less than a high school degree (105 of 489 [21.5%] vs 76 of 452 [16.8%]; χ2 = 33.311; P < .001), in those with monthly incomes above compared with below the poverty line (81 of 409 [19.8%] vs 100 of 512 [19.5%]; χ2 = 16.145; P = .003), in those without prior cancer treatment compared with those with prior cancer treatment (125 of 591 [21.2%] vs 40 of 289 [13.8%]; χ2 = 13.801; P = .008), and in participants with prior trial experience compared with those without (74 of 166 [44.6%] vs 111 of 786 [14.1%]; χ2 = 87.771; P < .001). Participants were motivated by potential personal health benefits (604 [61.8%]) and access to new treatments (522 [53.4%]). The primary concerns included potential adverse effects (555 [56.7%]), feeling like a "test subject" (284 [29.0%]), and the risk of receiving a placebo (197 [20.1%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of patients with cancer and their relatives, significant gaps in knowledge and persistent concerns about clinical trial safety were highlighted, impacting participation. Addressing these concerns through targeted education and transparent communication is essential for improving participation rates and ensuring more inclusive cancer research.

Using a qualitative sub-study to inform the design and delivery of randomised controlled trials on medicinal cannabis for symptom relief in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Recruitment for randomised controlled trials in palliative care can be challenging; disease progression and terminal illness underpin high rates of attrition. Research into participant decision-making in medicinal cannabis randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is very limited. Nesting qualitative sub-studies within RCTs can identify further challenges to participation, informing revisions to study designs and recruitment practices. This paper reports on findings from a qualitative sub-study supporting RCTs of medicinal cannabis for symptom burden relief in patients with advanced cancer in one Australian city.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 patients with advanced cancer, eligible to participate in a medicinal cannabis RCT (n=28 who consented to participate in an RCT; n=20 who declined). An iterative and abductive approach to thematic analysis and data collection fostered exploration of barriers and enablers to participation.

RESULTS

Key enablers included participants' enthusiasm and expectations of medicinal cannabis as beneficial (to themselves and future patients) for symptom management, especially after exhausting currently approved options, and a safer alternative to opioids. Some believed medicinal cannabis to have anti-cancer effects. Barriers to participation were the logistical challenges of participating (especially due to driving restrictions and fatigue), reluctance to interfere with an existing care plan, cost, and concerns about receiving the placebo and the uncertainty of the benefit. Some declined due to concerns about side-effects or a desire to continue accessing cannabis independent of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support revisions to subsequent medicinal cannabis RCT study designs, namely, omitting a requirement that participants attend weekly hospital appointments. These findings highlight the value of embedding qualitative sub-studies into RCTs. While some challenges to RCT recruitment are universal, others are context (population, intervention, location) specific. A barrier to participation found in research conducted elsewhere-stigma-was not identified in the current study. Thus, findings have important implications for those undertaking RCTs in the rapidly developing context of medical cannabis.

Participants' Perspectives of Their Involvement in Medical Device Trials: A Focus Groups Study

BACKGROUND

Medical technologies have the potential to improve quality and efficiency of healthcare. The design of clinical trials should consider participants' perspectives to optimise enrolment, engagement and satisfaction. This study aims to assess patients' perceptions of their involvement in medical device trials, to inform the designs of future medical technology implementation and evaluation.

METHODS

Four focus groups were undertaken with a total of 16 participants who had participated in a study testing hospital inpatient remote monitoring devices. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged: patients' motivations for participating in medical device research; patients' perceptions of technology in medicine; patients' understanding of trial methodology; and patients' perceptions of the benefits of involvement in medical device trials. The appeal of new technology is a contributing factor to the decision to consent, although concerns remain regarding risks associated with technology in healthcare settings. Perceived benefits of participating in device trials include extra care, social benefits and comradery with other participants seen using the devices, although there is a perceived lack of confidence in using technology amongst older patients.

CONCLUSION

Future device trials should prioritise information sharing with participants both before and after the trial. Verbal and written information alongside practical demonstrations can help to combat a lack of confidence with technology. Randomised trials and those with placebo- or sham-controlled arms should not be considered as barriers to participation. Study results should be disseminated to participants in lay format as soon as possible, subject to participant permission.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of 398 cancer patients toward participation in clinical trials: A single-center study from New Delhi, India

Background and Objective:

Clinical trials are considered to be the gold standard research methodology for evaluating the efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions.

Materials and Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted using standardized self-administered questionnaires prepared by the research team and statistician. The questionnaires were offered to cancer patients presented at a tertiary care center.

Results:

We surveyed 398 cancer patients, 193 (48.5%) males and 205 (51.5%) females with a mean (±standard deviation) 55.39 (±13.59) of age in years. Out of total, only 59 (14.82%) had the prior knowledge of the clinical trial. Forty-three (10.80%) participants were willing to participate in clinical trials.

Conclusion:

Cancer patients had preconceived notions and myths that linger in our society that clinical trial participation will harm them. The researchers/oncologists need to explore the rationale, objectives, and benefits of taking part in clinical trials and make it easy to understand by cancer patients.

It's time to deconstruct treatment-failure: A randomized controlled trial of nonoperative management of uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis with antibiotics alone

BACKGROUND

Published data demonstrate that management of uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis with antibiotics-alone is safe and frequently successful. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing antibiotics-alone to appendectomy are lacking, alongside insight into drivers of failure. We sought to validate the antibiotics-alone approach and identify barriers to success using an RCT design.

METHODS

Patients aged 6-17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis were randomized to appendectomy or intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam for 24-48 h followed by 10 days of oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole. Enrollment required symptoms <48 h, WBC<18, appendiceal diameter <11 mm, and radiographic absence of perforation. Lack of clinical improvement or persistently elevated WBC resulted in appendectomy. Primary outcomes were 1-year success rate of antibiotics-alone and quality-of-life measures.

RESULTS

Among 39 children enrolled over 31 months, 20 were randomized to antibiotics-alone and 19 to surgery. At 1 year, 6 nonoperative patients underwent appendectomy (70% success). Four cases were not true antibiotic failures but instead reflected "pragmatic" challenges to executing nonoperative algorithms. Only 2 cases represented recurrent/refractory appendicitis, suggesting a 90% adjusted 1-year success rate. Parental PedsQL™ scores were similar between treatment cohorts (91.3 vs 90.2, P = 0.32). Children treated with antibiotics-alone had faster return to activity (2.0 vs 12 days, P = 0.001) and fewer parental missed work days (0.0 vs 2.5, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

These data corroborate findings from non-randomized studies suggesting 70-90% of uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics-alone, with fewer disability days. Failures appear multifactorial, often reflecting practical hurdles and not antibiotic limitations. As surgeons consider nonoperative protocols for uncomplicated appendicitis, these data further inform the variability of treatment success.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1; randomized controlled trial.

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.

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.

A feasibility study to assess social stress and social support in patients enrolled in a cannabidiol (CBD) compassionate access program

Cannabidiol (CBD) trials offer an opportunity to examine social factors that shape outcomes of patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy. Prior research of patients treated with CBD for epilepsy describes financial struggles of these patients/families and the association between socioeconomic status and patient-centered outcomes. However, social determinants of health in this population are still poorly understood, mainly due to data scarcity. This study aimed to establish feasibility of assessing social stress, social support, and religious participation and their associations with outcomes (perceived health, quality of life, and mood) in patients treated with CBD for epilepsy. Data were collected during 2015-2018 through structured face-to face interviews with patients/caregivers in a CBD compassionate access/research program in the southern United States. Adult (ages 19-63; n = 65) and pediatric (ages 8-19; n = 46) patients or their caregivers were interviewed at the time of enrollment in the study. Social stress was assessed with stressful life events, perceived stress, epilepsy-related discrimination, and economic stressors; social support with the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List [ISEL]-12; and religious participation with frequency of religious attendance. The results showed economic stressors to be associated with poor overall health, but no associations were noted between stress, support, and religious participation measures and quality of life or mood. Despite a robust data collection plan, completeness of the data was mixed. We discuss lessons learned and directions for future research and identify potential refinements to social data collection in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy during clinical trials.

Automated Electronic Health Record-Based Tool for Identification of Patients With Metastatic Disease to Facilitate Clinical Trial Patient Ascertainment

PURPOSE

To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data.

METHODS

This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows.

RESULTS

In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review.

CONCLUSION

This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.

A Palliative Care Intervention for Patients on Phase 1 Studies

Background: Phase 1 clinical trials remain vital for oncology care. Patients on these trials require supportive care for quality-of-life (QOL) concerns. Objective: To test a Palliative Care Intervention (PCI) for patients with solid tumors enrolled in Phase I therapeutic trials with a priori hypothesis that psychological distress, QOL, satisfaction, symptoms, and resource utilization would be improved in the PCI group. Design: This unblinded randomized trial compared the PCI with usual care in patients accrued to Phase I Clinical Trials. Subjects (n = 479) were followed for 24 weeks, with 12 weeks as the primary outcome. Setting: Two Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States. Subjects: A consecutive sample, 21 years or older, English fluency, with solid tumors initiating a Phase 1 trial. Measurements: Psychological Distress (Distress Thermometer), QOL total and subscales (FACT-G), satisfaction (FAM-CARE), survival, and resource utilization (chart audit). Results: PCI subjects showed improved Psychological Distress (-0.47, p = 0.015) and Emotional Well-Being (0.81, p = 0.045), with differences on variables of QOL and distress between sites. High rates of symptom-management admissions (41.3%) and low rates of Advance Directive completion (39.0%), and hospice enrollment (30.7%), despite a median survival in both groups of 10.1 months from initiating a Phase 1 study. Conclusions: A nurse-delivered PCI can improve some QOL outcomes and distress for patients participating in Phase 1 trials. Greater integration of PC is needed to provide quality care to these patients and to support transitions from treatment to supportive care, especially at the end of life. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01612598.

Clinical Trials: Understanding Patient Perspectives and Beliefs About Treatment

BACKGROUND

Understanding the experiences of patients with solid tumors who are in phase 1 clinical trials can help nurses to provide optimal care.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to describe patient perspectives of participating in a phase 1 trial and understanding their disease status and treatment options. In addition, the authors describe the impact of the disease and clinical trial participation on quality of life.

METHODS

30 patients were interviewed and audio recorded; the interviews were transcribed and content analysis methods were used to identify common themes.

FINDINGS

Patients reported participating in the phase 1 clinical trial because their doctors informed and encouraged them, they had no other treatment options if they wanted to live longer, or they wanted to help future patients with cancer. Most believed that participation would improve or stabilize their illness and quality of life. They believed that, when the clinical trial ended, there would be new treatments. Participants reported that healthcare providers and family members provided support, and that compassion, cultural awareness, spiritual support, and the need for individual attention were important.

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.

Integrating Palliative Care for Patients on Clinical Trials: Opportunities for Oncology Nurses

The purpose of this article is to describe the lessons learned in the course of a 5-year research study on a palliative care intervention for persons on a Phase 1 clinical trial. Patients who are participating in Phase 1 trials and the families who care for them may be especially vulnerable and require special attention. The patients are generally experiencing the effects of advanced disease, and they also may soon experience unknown side effects, intense treatment regimens, and the emotional stress of an uncertain future as a result of clinical trial participation. Oncology nurses in all roles including clinical trials/research nurses, clinicians, educators, and advanced practice registered nurses play a critical role in addressing the quality-of-life concerns in this population. Palliative care can provide better symptom control and information on treatment options and facilitate a better understanding of patient/family goals. Attending to these factors can ultimately mean improved survival for the advanced cancer patient, and support for these patients can assist in advancing the field of oncology as these investigational therapies hold the promise for enhancing survival.

Study design factors influencing patients' willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomised vignette-based study

Background

High patient participation in clinical research reduces selection bias and ensures the generalizability of study findings. We explored study-related factors that may influence patients’ willingness to participate in research.

Methods

We submitted by mail two vignettes that described clinical research studies – a drug trial and a diagnostic study – to patients recently discharged from hospital and assessed their willingness to participate. We used a factorial design to randomly allocate three study attributes per vignette: in the drug trial, presumed superiority of new drug versus equipoise, public versus industry funding, and random versus non-random treatment allocation; in the diagnostic study, common versus rare disease, genetic versus protein analysis, and automatic reporting of results versus reporting on request.

Results

Of 2600 patients contacted, 1140 (44%) participated. Globally, willingness to participate in a drug trial was lower than in a diagnostic study (44.8% vs. 76.2%; P < 0.001). In the drug trial, participation was significantly higher when the new drug was presented as presumably better than the old (vs. equipoise) and when the study was funded by public sources (vs. industry), but was not affected by the allocation method. None of the factors tested in the diagnostic study was associated with participation.

Conclusions

Patients were more likely to participate in a hypothetical observational diagnostic study than in a hypothetical drug trial. Participation in the trial was lower when clinical equipoise was expressed and when the trial was funded by industry. These results suggest that some features of study design can influence participation.

Augmenting the randomized controlled trial with real-world data to aid clinical decision making in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate how efficacy outcomes from real-world data (RWD) can support those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in the context of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs and RWD studies with ≥50 adult patients per arm published in 2000–2017. Outcome measures were median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 13 RCTs and 22 RWD studies met eligibility criteria; 31, 28 and 25 studies, respectively, reported median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Summary outcome measures were similar in RWD and RCTs. Conclusion: RWD validates efficacy-based outcomes from RCTs and may provide supportive evidence to inform clinical decisions.

Enrollment Obstacles in a Randomized Controlled Trial: A Performance Survey of Enrollment in BEST-CLI Sites

BACKGROUND

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable form of scientific evidence, they are challenging to complete because of a variety of enrollment obstacles. We evaluated obstacles in a large RCT by comparing survey results at high-performing sites (HPS) and low-performing sites (LPS).

METHODS

The Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) trial is a prospective, pragmatic, multicenter, and multispecialty RCT that will compare clinical outcomes, quality of life, and cost in patients with CLI randomized to surgical bypass or endovascular therapy. BEST-CLI aims to enroll 2100 patients at 160 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. We surveyed the 30 HPS and 30 LPS to assess perceptions of enrollment obstacles. HPS were defined by enrollment of 0.5 subjects or more per month or more than 8 total subjects enrolled. LPS were defined by enrollment of 0.1 subjects per month or only 1 subject total. Responses were compared by site performance status.

RESULTS

There were 22 of 30 (73%) HPS and 14 of 30 (47%) LPS that answered the survey (P = 0.06), including 17 investigators and 31 coordinators. The mean total enrollment and rate of enrollment at HPS and LPS were 12.5 subjects at 1.5 subjects/month and 1.0 subject at 0.1 subjects/month, respectively. The most common barrier to enrollment at HPS was difficulty convincing patients and their families to participate (36%), whereas at LPS both difficulty convincing patients and difficulty motivating investigators to enroll (29% each) were most frequently cited. At HPS, the most common obstacle to consenting patients for the trial was patient/family having strong preference toward revascularization strategy (32%) and at LPS it was patient/family not wanting to have treatment chosen at random (36%). At 55% of HPS and 43% of LPS, the trial team was reported as extremely collaborative (P = 0.73), whereas 68% of HPS and 64% of LPS reported having identified a trial champion on their team (P = 1). The most restrictive perceived enrollment criterion at HPS was prior index limb stenting with significant restenosis (32%), whereas at LPS it was excessive risk for surgical bypass (43%). Materials to aid enrollment were used equally at HPS and LPS: patient brochures at 59% HPS and 64% LPS (P = 1); investigator talking points at 45% of HPS and 36% of LPS (P = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions and investigator biases are significant challenges to enrollment in large RCTs. In the BEST-CLI trial, difficulty convincing patients and families to allow treatment randomization and difficulty in motivating investigators were major enrollment obstacles.

Patients Driving the Clinical Trial Designs - Democracy in Clinical Research

BACKGROUND

Many of the clinical trials remain inefficient owing to the low retention rate, and an impact on the power of the study. In addition, regulatory bodies recommend including the patients' experience, especially, patient-reported outcomes, while making clinical decisions, and approvals.

INTRODUCTION

Patient centricity has reached the stage where patients are both willing and required to participate in clinical trial designs, regulatory review and experts on other panels. Efforts are being made in the right direction and there are multiple aspects that have been or are being addressed.

OBJECTIVE

The current article focuses on how to include patients in clinical trial designs, the benefits, challenges, and solutions. This means patients who were merely the participants until now, they will be the drivers of trials now, and hence the clinical trials will be more efficient and productive.

KEY FINDINGS

There is a drive to enhance patients' participation in clinical trial designs, especially, visits, efficacy outcomes and their expectations with the treatment. Patients want to remain informed, right from before participation to the completion of the trial. Patients are now an important part of regulatory review, as apparent from recent initiatives by the FDA and EMA. This will enhance patients' awareness, and bring ownership and transparency. Various patient organizations, advocacy groups have made some great suggestions and taken initiatives in this direction. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, European Patient's Academy on Therapeutic Innovation, and Patient- Centered Outcomes Research Institute are a few key initiatives. However, there is a set of challenges emanating from the complexity of trials, associated with unique mechanism of action of drugs, their efficacy and safety profiles, which has to be dealt with properly.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the pharma domain is at the verge of putting the patient in the spotlight, to achieve a near-real democracy, where the clinical research is the by the patient, for the patient, and, of the patient.

Global Breast Cancer Research: Moving Forward

Breast cancer is a major global health problem and major cause of mortality. Although mortality trends are declining in high-income countries, trends are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Addressing global breast cancer research is a challenging endeavor, as notable disparities and extremely heterogeneous realities exist in different regions across the world. Basic global cancer health care needs have been addressed by the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed list of essential medicines and by resource-stratified guidelines for screening and treatment. However, specific strategies are needed to address disparities in access to health care, particularly access to new therapies. Discussions about global research in breast cancer should take into account the ongoing globalization of clinical trials. Collaboration fostered by well-established research organizations in North America and Europe is essential for the development of infrastructure and human resources in LMICs so that researchers in these countries can begin to address regional questions. Specific challenges that impact the future of global breast cancer research include increasing the availability of trials in LMICs, developing strategies to increase patient participation in clinical trials, and creation of clear guidelines for the development of real-world evidence-based research. The main objective of this review is to encourage the discussion of challenges in global breast cancer research with the hope that collectively we will be able to generate workable proposals to advance the field.

Recruiting young pre-symptomatic children for a clinical trial in type 1 diabetes: Insights from the Fr1da insulin intervention study

Background

Although detection of children at high risk of developing type 1 diabetes and diagnosis of early stages is possible, up to now there exists no approved therapy to delay or prevent type 1 diabetes. Thus it is vital to develop evidence-based interventions. For this a sufficient number of trial participants is crucial but difficult to obtain especially in asymptomatic children.

Aim

Identifying family characteristics that lead to or impede trial participation and analyze reasons stated by families for non-participation.

Methods

Participants for the Fr1da Insulin Intervention study are recruited from the Fr1da study, a population based screening for early stage type 1 diabetes in Bavaria. Families with eligible children were invited to enroll. We analyzed sex and age of the child, distance of the family to the study center in Munich and the existence of a first degree family member with type 1 as possible influential factors for study participation. We also analyzed reasons stated by families who declined study participation in a phone interview.

Results

Of 146 eligible children 77 (53%) were enrolled into the trial. None of the tested family characteristics differed significantly between the enrolling and the families not participating, but in general enrolling families lived closer to the study site than families not participating. This is also reflected in the reasons given by non-participating families. The most frequent reason stated were time restrictions. The second most frequent reason was the venous blood draw.

Conclusion

The factors for non-participation identified in this project need be taken into account for the design of future trials in young children to ensure proper recruitment and thus to generate valid results for medical treatment of children. More research on the reason of participation and non-participation in clinical trials is needed.

From the other side: The patient perspective on cancer clinical trials

This article provides the patient perspective on cancer clinical trials.