Comparable indicators of therapeutic misconception between epilepsy or Parkinson's disease patients between those with clinical trial experience and trial non-participants

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Statins as an antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying treatment? A survey of what UK patients and significant others think about repurposing and trialing them for epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To identify the views of people with epilepsy (PWE), and their significant others, on the repurposing and trialing of statins as a potential antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying treatment for those who have had the first seizure.

METHODS

Online questionnaire. Participants needed to be aged ≥ 16 years, UK residents, and able to independently complete a questionnaire in English. User groups distributed study adverts. Embedded infographics explained repurposing, why anti-seizure treatment is not typically started after a first seizure and the nature of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). The questionnaire asked participants to reflect and rate their expected willingness to have started an unspecified treatment after their first seizure/s (or that of the person with epilepsy they knew). They also rated willingness if the treatment were a statin, views of statins, the importance of an RCT of statins to their community, the outcomes it should assess, and their willingness to have taken part in it. The estimated number needed for the survey was 324.

RESULTS

Responses from 213 persons were analyzed; 111 (52.1%) were PWE and 102 (47.9%) significant others. The median years diagnosed was 10 and PWE suffered from relatively severe epilepsy. One hundred and seventeen (54.9%) said they would have started an unspecified treatment after their first seizure/s (or supported the person with epilepsy they knew to have). A similar proportion (55.4%) said they would have started the treatment if it were a statin. Participants' main concern about statins, expressed by 79%, was their possible side effects. Repurposing was a concern for only 25%. Most (85.8%) rated an RCT of statins as of extreme or high importance; 54.4% said they would have participated.

CONCLUSION

The PWE and significant others (SOs) responding to our survey expressed views towards repurposing statins that were generally positive and indicate a trial in those who have had a first seizure might be feasible. Concerns regarding side effects are common. Our findings could help optimize a future trial's design and the case for funding. Limitations include that we did not survey persons who had experienced a first seizure and did not go on to develop epilepsy. Also, persons with uncontrolled epilepsy were overrepresented.

Positive Attitudes and Therapeutic Misconception Around Hypothetical Clinical Trial Participation in the Huntington's Disease Community

Background:

New therapies that could modify the disease course of Huntington’s disease (HD) are entering clinical trials. However, conceptions about clinical research from the HD community are unknown. This knowledge could help inform patient-clinician discussions surrounding clinical trial participation.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to assess clinical trial attitudes and understanding in the HD community.

Methods:

We developed a survey incorporating two measures of trial understanding and attitudes and the impact of therapeutic route of administration on hypothetical trial participation. The survey was distributed via emails, flyers, and social media through HD-related organizations.

Results:

There were 73 responses. Individuals self-reported as clinically diagnosed with HD, gene positive but asymptomatic, or primary caregivers. Respondents viewed clinical trials positively and generally viewed trials as safe. Individuals with prior HD-related research experience were less likely to have negative expectations about trials than those without research experience (p = 0.002), and women had higher information needs than men (p = 0.001). Individuals with HD were more likely than the other groups to experience therapeutic misconception (p = 0.002). All respondents were able to appraise risks and benefits of research but exhibited optimism about trial outcomes. Willingness to participate was highest when the route of administration was minimally invasive.

Conclusions:

While the HD community views clinical trials positively, patients with HD are at high risk for therapeutic misconception and all groups are optimistic about trial outcomes. Limitations of this study include a small sample that may be inclined to view research positively given past trial participation and interest in participating in HD surveys. However, the findings from this study can be used to strengthen informed consent during HD clinical trial recruitment.

"I Want to Do It, But I Want to Make Sure That I Do It Right." Views of Patients with Parkinson's Disease Regarding Early Stem Cell Clinical Trial Participation

Background: First-in-human clinical trials with stem cells for Parkinson's disease (PD) are on the horizon. Their epistemic success depends on ensuring the participation of a sufficient number and appropriately diverse group of patients with PD. Their ethical soundness requires that the research community ensures that subjects' decisions about whether to participate or not are consistent with participants' values, motivations, and goals. We sought to identify PD patients' knowledge, concerns, and expectations regarding early-phase stem cell research in PD. Methods: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups with patients with PD. Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify participants' knowledge, concerns, and expectations regarding participation in early stem cell clinical research in PD. Results: Four themes were generated from our data analysis: (1) participants' skepticism about the potential benefits of these trials; (2) their desire to obtain information about various aspects related to this research; (3) a recognition that accessing available knowledge was often difficult; and (4) the relevance of trusting relationships with various stakeholders. Conclusions: Participants expressed skepticism about the immediate impact of stem cell research. Nonetheless, such skepticism often reflected an appropriate consideration of the risks and potential benefits of participating in high-risk clinical trials. Despite their skepticism, participants were eager to learn more about stem cell research and clinical trials processes. They identified consistently trusted avenues of knowledge on these topics, but they often found it difficult to access relevant information or to determine its value.

Specialized Smartphone Intervention Apps: Review of 2014 to 2018 NIH Funded Grants

Background

The widespread adoption of smartphones provides researchers with expanded opportunities for developing, testing and implementing interventions. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds competitive, investigator-initiated grant applications. Funded grants represent the state of the science and therefore are expected to anticipate the progression of research in the near future.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to provide an analysis of the kinds of smartphone-based intervention apps funded in NIH research grants during the five-year period between 2014 and 2018.

Methods

We queried NIH Reporter to identify candidate funded grants that addressed mHealth and the use of smartphones. From 1524 potential grants, we identified 397 that met the requisites of including an intervention app. Each grant’s abstract was analyzed to understand the focus of intervention. The year of funding, type of activity (eg, R01, R34, and so on) and funding were noted.

Results

We identified 13 categories of strategies employed in funded smartphone intervention apps. Most grants included either one (35.0%) or two (39.0%) intervention approaches. These included artificial intelligence (57 apps), bionic adaptation (33 apps), cognitive and behavioral therapies (68 apps), contingency management (24 apps), education and information (85 apps), enhanced motivation (50 apps), facilitating, reminding and referring (60 apps), gaming and gamification (52 apps), mindfulness training (18 apps), monitoring and feedback (192 apps), norm setting (7 apps), skills training (85 apps) and social support and social networking (59 apps). The most frequently observed grant types included Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants (40.8%) and Research Project Grants (R01s) (26.2%). The number of grants funded increased through the five-year period from 60 in 2014 to 112 in 2018.

Conclusions

Smartphone intervention apps are increasingly competitive for NIH funding. They reflect a wide diversity of approaches that have significant potential for use in applied settings.