Recruitment & retention program for the NeuroNEXT SMA Biomarker Study: Super Babies for SMA!

Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation.

RESULTS

Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews

INTRODUCTION

Parents struggle with being asked to participate in neonatal research. Past work has largely failed to include views of minoritized parents, low-socioeconomic status parents, and those who declined research. We aimed to describe parents' preferences related to learning about eligibility for neonatal research.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews of parents who were asked to enroll their infant in neonatal research. Themes related to parental experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research were identified using content analysis.

RESULTS

Many parents desired greater involvement of their clinical team. Emotions at the time of recruitment were critically important to parents' experience, where were deeply impacted by interpersonal relationships with research staff.

DISCUSSION

Increased involvement of the clinical team and greater sensitivity to the stressors around parent and infant conditions at the time of recruitment for neonatal research should be considered by those attempting to improve recruitment for neonatal research.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically.

METHODS

We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines for ALS genetic testing and counseling

OBJECTIVE

Advances in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) gene discovery, ongoing gene therapy trials, and patient demand have driven increased use of ALS genetic testing. Despite this progress, the offer of genetic testing to persons with ALS is not yet "standard of care." Our primary goal is to develop clinical ALS genetic counseling and testing guidelines to improve and standardize genetic counseling and testing practice among neurologists, genetic counselors or any provider caring for persons with ALS.

METHODS

Core clinical questions were identified and a rapid review performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) 2015 method. Guideline recommendations were drafted and the strength of evidence for each recommendation was assessed by combining two systems: the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) System and the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP). A modified Delphi approach was used to reach consensus among a group of content experts for each guideline statement.

RESULTS

A total of 35 guideline statements were developed. In summary, all persons with ALS should be offered single-step genetic testing, consisting of a C9orf72 assay, along with sequencing of SOD1, FUS, and TARDBP, at a minimum. The key education and genetic risk assessments that should be provided before and after testing are delineated. Specific guidance regarding testing methods and reporting for C9orf72 and other genes is provided for commercial laboratories.

INTERPRETATION

These evidence-based, consensus guidelines will support all stakeholders in the ALS community in navigating benefits and challenges of genetic testing.

Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low enrollment within pediatric research increases the cost of research, decreases generalizability, and threatens to exacerbate existing health disparities. To assess barriers and facilitators to pediatric research participation and evaluate differences by enrollment status.

METHODS

Data Sources include PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. Study selection include peer reviewed articles that contained information related to facilitators and barriers to the parental decision whether to enroll their child in research and included the views of parents who declined. We extracted barriers and facilitators to research, enrollment status, and study characteristics, including study design, quality, and patient population.

RESULTS

Seventy articles were included for analysis. Facilitators of participation included: benefits, trust, support of research, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common facilitators within those categories included health benefit to child (N = 39), altruism (N = 30), and the importance of research (N = 26). Barriers to participation included: study-related concerns, burdens of participation, lack of trust, general research concerns, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common barriers within those categories included risks to child (N = 46), burdens of participation (N = 35), and the stress of the decision (N = 29). We had a limited ability to directly compare by enrollment status and no ability to analyze interactions between facilitators and barriers. We only included studies written in English.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified key facilitators and barriers to research participation in pediatrics. The findings from this review may guide researchers aiming to create interventions to improve the parental experience of recruitment for pediatric studies and to optimize enrollment rates.

Clinical and Research Readiness for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: The Time Is Now for Knowledge Translation

Disease-modifying therapies for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are rapidly changing the outlook for many individuals by substantially altering the clinical course, phenotypic expression, and functional outcomes. Physical therapists have played critical roles in the effective conduct and execution of clinical trials leading to the approval of these therapies. Given the treatment landscape, educating practicing clinicians to understand best practice is of great importance, and a timely call to action to facilitate knowledge translation from SMA researchers to clinicians is necessary. The SMA Clinical Trial Readiness Program engaged clinical and research centers, identified physical therapy knowledge gaps related to evaluation and outcomes assessment, and provided educational resources, including the development of a SMA Best Practices Clinical Evaluator Toolkit. Toolkit content synthesizes evidence and covers a breadth of issues relevant to practice, including background on SMA and the drug pipeline; therapist roles and responsibilities related to research; clinical and research evaluation; and useful materials and resources for additional education, training, and professional development. Surveys and telephone interviews were conducted with physical therapists managing individuals with SMA to determine their SMA practice experience and educational needs. Their recommendations, along with synthesized SMA research evidence, provided input into toolkit content development and assisted in identifying gaps important to address. Impact was assessed over time via utilization feedback surveys downloaded by clinicians across various settings. Open-ended feedback supported beneficial use of the toolkit for clinicians and researchers working with individuals with SMA. Next steps should include timely dissemination to bring this resource and others into practice in a systematic, efficacious, and engaging manner. As the treatment landscape for SMA evolves, the therapist's role in multidisciplinary care and research is of great importance, and a call to action for the development, implementation, evaluation and reporting of informed knowledge using evidence-based knowledge translation strategies is critical.

IMPACT

Partnership among patient advocacy groups, industry collaborators, and key opinion leaders/experts can optimize essential resource development to address the knowledge gap for best practices in physical therapy. This partnership model can be replicated for other diseases, providing an efficient way to support clinical trial readiness and target early development of evidence-based content and resources related to both research and best practice clinical evaluation for physical therapist researchers, clinicians, and patients. While identifying knowledge gaps and resource development are initial steps toward change in SMA practice, a rapidly changing rehabilitation outlook warrants a call to action for enhanced efforts aimed at improving rehabilitation evaluation, assessment, and care for this population. It is critical to forge a timely path forward for development, implementation, and sustainability of effective knowledge translation to practice for SMA.

Investigating Attitudes Towards Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetal Therapy for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)

OBJECTIVE

In utero SMA treatment could improve survival & neurologic outcomes. We investigated the attitudes of patients and parents with SMA regarding prenatal diagnosis, fetal therapies, and clinical trials.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team designed a questionnaire that Cure SMA electronically distributed to parents and patients (>18 years old) affected by SMA. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to analyze associations between respondent characteristics and attitudes.

RESULTS

Of 114 respondents (60% of whom were patients), only 2 were prenatally diagnosed. However, 91% supported prenatal testing and 81% felt there had been a delay in their diagnosis. Overall, 55% would enroll in a phase I trial for fetal antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) while 79% would choose an established fetal ASO/small molecule therapy. Overall, 61% would enroll in fetal gene therapy trials; 87% would choose fetal gene therapies. Patients were less likely to enroll in a fetal gene therapy trial than parents enrolling a child (OR 0.31, p<0.05). Older parental age and believing there had been excessive delay in diagnosis were associated with an interest in enrolling in a fetal ASO trial (OR 1.04, 7.38, respectively, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In utero therapies are promising for severe genetic diseases. Patients with SMA and their parents view prenatal testing and therapies positively, with gene therapy being favored. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review

Background

The patient voice is becoming increasingly prominent across all stages of therapeutic innovation. It pervades research domains from funding and recruitment, to translation, care, and support. Advances in genomic technologies have facilitated novel breakthrough therapies, whose global developments, regulatory approvals, and confined governmental subsidisations have stimulated renewed hope amongst rare disease patient organisations (RDPOs). With intensifying optimism characterising the therapeutic landscape, researcher-advocate partnerships have reached an inflexion point, at which stakeholders may evaluate their achievements and formulate frameworks for future refinement.

Main text

Through this narrative review, we surveyed relevant literature around the roles of RDPOs catering to the rare paediatric neurological disease community. Via available literature, we considered RDPO interactions within seven domains of therapeutic development: research grant funding, industry sponsorship, study recruitment, clinical care and support, patient-reported outcome measures, and research prioritisation. In doing so, we explored practical and ethical challenges, gaps in understanding, and future directions of inquiry. Current literature highlights the increasing significance of ethical and financial challenges to patient advocacy. Biomedical venture philanthropy is gaining momentum amongst RDPOs, whose small grants can incrementally assist laboratories in research, training, and pursuits of more substantial grants. However, RDPO seed funding may encounter long-term sustainability issues and difficulties in selecting appropriate research investments. Further challenges include advocate-industry collaborations, commercial biases, and unresolved controversies regarding orphan drug subsidisation. Beyond their financial interactions, RDPOs serve instrumental roles in project promotion, participant recruitment, biobank creation, and patient registry establishment. They are communication conduits between carers, patients, and other stakeholders, but their contributions may be susceptible to bias and unrealistic expectations.

Conclusion

Further insights into how RDPOs navigate practical and ethical challenges in therapeutic development may enhance cooperative efforts. They may also inform resources, whose distribution among advocates, parents, and clinicians, may assist decision-making processes around rare disease clinical trials and treatments.

Seven-Year Experience From the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Supported Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials

Importance

One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders.

Observations

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59 (21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22 (18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean, 102.1; range, 1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean, 37.5; range, 0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean, 4.0; range, 0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings.

Conclusions and Relevance

NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions.

RESTORE: A Prospective Multinational Registry of Patients with Genetically Confirmed Spinal Muscular Atrophy - Rationale and Study Design

Background:

Dramatic improvements in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treatment have changed the prognosis for patients with this disease, leading to important new questions. Gathering representative, real-world data about the long-term efficacy and safety of emerging SMA interventions is essential to document their impact on patients and caregivers.

Objectives:

This registry will assess outcomes in patients with genetically confirmed SMA and provide information on the effectiveness and long-term safety of approved and emerging treatments.

Design and Methods:

RESTORE is a prospective, multicenter, multinational observational registry. Patients will be managed according to usual clinical practice. Both newly recruitedSMAtreatment centers and sites involved in existing SMA registries, including iSMAC, Treat-NMD, French SMA Assistance Publique- Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Cure-SMA, SMArtCARE, will be eligible to participate; de novo; sites already participating in another registry may be included via consortium agreements. Data from patients enrolled in partnering registries will be shared with the RESTORE Registry and data for newly diagnosed patients will be added upon enrollment. Patients will be enrolled over a 5-year period and followed for 15 years or until death. Assessments will include SMA history and treatment, pulmonary, nutritional, and motor milestones, healthcare resource utilization, work productivity, activity impairment, adverse events, quality of life, caregiver burden, and survival.

Status:

Recruitment started in September 2018. As of January 3, 2020, 64 patients were enrolled at 25 participating sites.

Conclusions:

The RESTORE Registry has begun recruiting recently diagnosed patients with genetically confirmed SMA, enabling assessment of both short- and long-term patient outcomes.