Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy

The High Cost of the Legal Route in Public Health: The Impact of the Judicialization of Medicines in the Municipal Unified Health System in Campinas

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the costs and factors associated with the judicialization of medicines for the municipal Unified Health System in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, from 2017 to 2021.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data provided by the Municipal Health Department of Campinas and the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 506 medicines (322 active substances) and 493 legal cases. Of the US$9.270 million disbursed, 67.3% were allocated to purchase medicines. On average, 28.8% of the pharmaceuticals were listed on the National List of Essential Medicines (Rename), of which 52.3% were listed in the specialized component. Expenditures on nonincorporated and oncological medicines accounted for 76% of the total value. Acquisition of brand-specific medicines was predominant (53.7%), of which 75.5% had therapeutic equivalents. ABC curve shows that only 28 active substances corresponded to 79.8% of the expenses incurred to serve 573 plaintiffs. Four factors, when present in legal actions, prevented the rational use of public resources: assumption of responsibilities of other federative entities, acquisition of medicines not incorporated in Rename and oncological drugs, trademark determination, and the requirement to supply the medicine for an indefinite period. Costs associated with these factors caused an increase in expenditure, even with a decrease in legal demands filed against the municipality.

CONCLUSIONS

Judicialization of medicines in Campinas from 2017 to 2021 required an allocation of US$6.2 million, aimed at treating only 0.068% of the population. Associated factors include legal requirements and internal management challenges that have increased costs.

Evaluation of drug litigation against the Campinas municipal health system from 2017 to 2021

In Brazil, the judicialization of public health for access to medications has resulted in significant challenges to the management of public policies, especially at the municipal level. To evaluate the profile of drug litigations against the Campinas municipal health system from 2017 to 2021, this study analyzed the characteristics of litigants, medicine dispensation, and the timing of court decisions. A quantitative, analytical, and comparative cross-sectional study was conducted using data on the dispensation of 506 types of medications and 493 court cases. The analysis included sociodemographic, procedural, medical-sanitary, and pharmaceutical assistance management variables. The time of court decisions was assessed using the Kruskal‒Wallis test complemented by the Dunn test. The plaintiffs were predominantly adults, females, and self-declared students, and some cases involved nonresidents. Most of the lawsuits were represented by private lawyers, gratuitousness of justice and with decisions favorable to the plaintiff. However, only 43% of the patients obtained a preliminary injunction or early tutelage. The median time needed for a court decision from the date of case filing was 12 days until the granting of a preliminary injunction or early tutelage and 6.5 months until a judgment or dismissal without a decision on the merits. Approximately 32.4% of the medications dispensed by the judicial pharmacy already belonged to the list of the Brazil's Unified Health System in 2020; 46.3% were prescribed by their generic name; 75.5% had therapeutic equivalents, and 94.9% had marketing authorization from the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency. Judicialization in Campinas is an alternative way of accessing medications, but it is time-consuming and benefits only a small portion of the population (0.068%). The characteristics of the plaintiffs and judicialized medicines highlight the need to review health policies to promote equitable and efficient access to essential treatments for the population.

Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery

PURPOSE

Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.

Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making

Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0-1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.

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.

The Importance of Social Engagement in the Development of an HIV Cure: A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Perspectives

As research into the development of an HIV cure gains prominence, assessing the perspectives of stakeholders becomes imperative. It empowers stakeholders to determine priorities and influence research processes. We conducted a systematic review of the empirical literature on stakeholder perspectives. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for empirical, peer-reviewed articles, published before September 2022. Our analysis of 78 papers showed that stakeholders could be divided into three categories: people with HIV, key populations, and professionals. Following thematic synthesis, two main themes were distinguished: stakeholders' perspectives on HIV cure research and stakeholders' perspectives on HIV cure. Research on perspectives on HIV cure research showed that stakeholders' hypothetical willingness to participate (WTP) in HIV cure research was relatively high, while actual WTP was found to be lower. Studies also identified associated (individual) characteristics of hypothetical WTP, as well as facilitators and barriers to hypothetical participation. Additionally, we reported research on experiences of actual HIV cure research participation. Our analysis of stakeholder perceptions of HIV cure showed that most stakeholders preferred a cure that could eliminate HIV and outlined positive associated impacts. Furthermore, we observed that most included studies were conducted among PWHIV, and in the Global North. To empower stakeholders, we recommend that future research include an even greater diversity of stakeholders and incorporate theories of behavior to further explore how stakeholders decide to meaningfully engage in every stage of HIV cure research.

Silent Conversations: Goals of Care and End-of-Life Quality in Relapsed High-Risk Leukemia

Background

Advanced practice providers (APPs) affect high-quality health care through leadership, evidence-based practice implementation, and quality improvement projects. When planning solutions to clinical problems, leadership must solicit APP input to promote success. Hematology patients are more likely to receive poor-quality end-of-life (EOL) care than those with solid tumors. Regardless of disease, aggressive EOL care is increasing despite evidence that it is often inconsistent with patients' goals of care (GOC). Data regarding this phenomenon in hematology specifically is lacking. The distorted association of "end of life" with "goals of care" has "silenced" crucial goals discussions in patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk leukemia, which raises concerns for the provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values and preferences. Hematologists may possess certain traits and distinct barriers leading to what one might call an aversion to GOC discussions in the inpatient setting.

Aims

(1) Quantify hematologists' rate of participation in a GOC pathway initiative during two separate months. (2) Explore the hematologists' definition of and barriers to having GOC discussions.

Design

This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design (follow-up explanations variant).

Sample

Quantitative: Hematology inpatient admissions during two nonconsecutive months in 2021. Qualitative: Eighteen leukemia hematologists from one dedicated cancer center.

Results

During the 2 months, an average of 36% of admissions met the criteria for GOC pathway initiation, 19% of those had an appropriate initiation order, and < 1% had a properly documented and billed GOC discussion. Nine hematologists responded to a SurveyMonkey poll with two questions. All nine included clinical situation and communication in their definition of GOC discussions. Time limitations and prognostic uncertainty were the two most reported barriers.

Discussion

The findings demonstrate that the apprehension of hematologists to have GOC conversations is similarly seen in the APPs' reluctance to initiate a pathway intended to lead to GOC conversations. The percentage of eligible inpatient admissions meeting the specified criteria was similar between the 2 months; however, the number of appropriate referrals and documented or billed GOC discussions was higher in the earlier month, demonstrating temporal decline. Further research inquiry is needed to explore causation of this phenomenon.

Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer.

METHODS

Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell's c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs.

RESULTS

In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low-risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death.

CONCLUSIONS

The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Change of genitourinary cancer patients' perception and expectations over the course of pharmacotherapy

To determine the course of treatment while considering the patients' desires, we examined trends regarding patients' perception and expectations over the course of cancer pharmacotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed interview sheets filled in by patients with advanced urogenital cancers when they started a new pharmacotherapy regimen between 2014 and 2020. The responses to the following questions were analyzed: 1) How did your doctor explain the treatment objectives?; 2) Are you willing to receive treatment?; and 3) When the standard treatment becomes difficult to continue, would you like to try another treatment even if it may cause severe side effects? A total of 277 patients answered the interview sheet. The percentage of patients who accurately perceived the treatment objectives among patients receiving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 67%, 79%, and 93%, respectively. The percentage significantly improved over the course of pharmacotherapy (p = 0.0057). The percentage of patients who indicated that they were willing to receive treatment in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 80%, 83%, and 86%, respectively. The percentage of patients who indicated that they wanted to try another treatment when the standard treatment became difficult to continue in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 56%, 64%, and 59%, respectively. The percentage of patients who accurately perceived the objective of pharmacotherapy increased over the course of pharmacotherapy. The rate of patients who were willing to receive treatment and try other treatments when the standard treatment became too difficult to continue remained consistently high.

Why not? Motivations for entering a volunteer register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

Backgrounds

Healthy volunteers play a key role in clinical trials and it is crucial to develop recruitment strategies that capitalise on their motivations and maximise their participation. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of finding motivated healthy volunteers for the development of new vaccines. Public registers represent a promising way to promote the participation of healthy volunteers in the research field, but their adoption is still limited. The current study aimed to explore the motivations of healthy volunteers to enrol in an Italian public register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic and their attitude toward participating in a phase 1 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The impacts of different enrolling interview modalities (in person, by phone, by mail) on motivation, understanding of information and trust in researchers were also investigated.

Methods

An online survey investigating experience with COVID-19, motivations to enrol, trust in researchers, political and healthcare authorities and pharmacological companies was presented to people applying as healthy volunteers in the public register for clinical trials at Phase 1 Unit Research Centre of ASST Monza, Italy, and considering to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Data were collected in June 2021.

Results

Altruistic motivations were the main driver for enrolling in the public register, while self-interested motivations were secondary. No gender differences were found. As for enrolling modalities, no differences emerged between in-person and interviews for motivation to enrol, understanding of information and trust in researchers. Email modality led to significantly lower volunteers’ satisfaction and understanding of information but similar trust in research.

Conclusions

This study supports the validity of different interview modalities (in person and by phone) for the enrolment of healthy volunteers for clinical trials and highlights the positive role of public registers for the recruitment procedures.

Family caregivers support their patient's decision to participate in a phase 1 clinical trial: Weighing the pros and cons, bearing the costs

OBJECTIVES

When patients with advanced cancer pursue phase 1 clinical trials, family caregivers are impacted as they adopt new roles and responsibilities in time-pressured, uncertain circumstances. This study explored the nature of the caregivers' participation in patients' decision to pursue phase 1 clinical trials and the early impact of the decision on the caregiver.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 family caregivers of advanced cancer patients who had agreed to participate in phase 1 clinical trials. They were coded for information about the caregiver's relationship with the patient, typical style of decision-making together, understanding of the patient's prognosis and trial, contributions to decision-making and the initial impacts of the trial on the caregiver. Codes illuminating the research questions were grouped into categories and themes, compared across transcripts and examined against the literature.

RESULTS

Caregivers unequivocally supported the patients' decision to pursue the phase 1 trial as they hoped that the patient would derive medical benefit from the trial. They withheld their opinions and fears about the trial from the patients to support patient autonomy during the decision-making process. The patient's decision to participate increased the caregivers' burdens and deprived them of time spent on pleasurable activities at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Respecting the patients' personal autonomy, caregivers supported the trial, despite the complex caregiving required. As the success of phase 1 trials relies on caregiver involvement, it is imperative that healthcare professionals be sensitized to the support needs of these caregivers.

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (β = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (β = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (β = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (β = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.

Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials

Background

The increasing number of clinical research opportunities requires increasing numbers of participants in clinical trials. However, it may become increasingly problematic, as protocols have become increasingly complex. Better understanding of patients’ attitudes towards their potential participation in clinical trials is essential for developing effective clinical trial recruitment strategies. In Greece, limited research has been conducted on this topic so far. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. The Greek version of a recently developed questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials, a 27-item scale distributed into four factors, was tested. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographics. A demographic comparison was conducted.

Results

The four-factor solution derived in our study consisted of the same 27 items and it was different from the six-factor solution that Arnetz et al. proposed. The factors risks and benefits, that consisted of 5 and 3 items respectively in the six-factor solution, were merged into one factor that consisted of 10 items in the four-factor solution. The four factors produced were Risks and benefits (ten items, α = 0,867), Patient’s expectations (six items, α = 0.864), Patient’s participation (five items, α = 0.827), and Cost and convenience (five items, α = 0,770). We found that demographic factors did not impact patients’ opinions about clinical trials participation, except for gender. The participants reported as important for participating in clinical trial: receiving clear and adequate information (95,5 %) and being given the opportunity to ask questions (97,8 %), take part in discussions regarding their own treatment (94,6 %), and voice their concerns and opinions (91,1 %). As factors strongly associated with participants’ willingness to participate in a clinical trial were reported: concerns about the risks of being in a clinical trial (87,5 %), the possible side effects of clinical trials (86,3 %), the type of treatment given in a clinical trial (83,7 %), and whether participation would improve their quality of life (QoL) (81,5 %).

Conclusions

The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the questionnaire measuring patient perceptions and expectations of participating in clinical trials demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples. The findings that emerged from this study are in line with previous literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07111-x.

Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of experimental cancer medicine (ECM) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The study's design was qualitative. Two focus groups with patients were undertaken followed by semistructured interviews, to explore patients' experiences of ECM clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A regional cancer centre (tertiary care) in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients (aged 52-79) participated in one of the two focus groups and 22 patients (aged 42-83) participated in interviews.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients' experiences of an ECM trial.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from the analysis: decision making, information needs, the experience of trial participation and impact of trial participation. Subthemes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

To make fully informed decisions about trial participation, patients required the simplification of trial information and wanted more information about side effects, their response to trial treatment and the overall trial progress throughout the trial. Patients highlighted the need for improvement for the support provided to their family and friends.

Patient perceptions of the challenges of recruitment to a renal randomised trial registry: a pilot questionnaire-based study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of new therapies. However, issues of external validity often affect result application to real-world settings. Using registries to conduct RCTs is a reasonably new practice, but is appealing because it combines the benefits of both observational studies and RCTs. There is limited literature on patient motivators, barriers, and consent to registries for conducting RCTs. The purpose of our study was to establish the factors that motivate and/or inhibit patients from joining a registry for RCTs and to determine what information matters to patients when making an enrolment decision to participate in such a registry.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study at a dialysis centre in Southwest Ireland representing a catchment patient population of approximately 430,000. Quantitative data were coded and analysed in SPSS (v16). Descriptive statistics were produced, and open-ended questions were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Eighty-seven patients completed the questionnaire. Reasons for participation in a registry included personal and altruistic benefits. Barriers to participation were time and travel requirements associated with registry participation, data safety concerns, risks, side effects, and concerns that registry participation would impact current treatment. Although 29.8% of patients expressed concern regarding their data being stored in a registry, 79.3% were still willing to consent to have their data uploaded and stored in a registry for conducting RCTs. It was important to patients to have their GP (general practitioner) involved in the decision to participate, despite little day-to-day contact with their GP for renal dialysis management.

Conclusion

Challenges to recruitment to registries for RCTs exist, but addressing the identified concerns of potential participants may aid patients in making a more informed enrolment decision and may improve recruitment to registries, and by extension, to RCTs conducted using the registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05526-9.

Identifying patient values impacting the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For many patients with advanced cancer, the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical trials or not is complex. The decision-making process requires an in-depth discussion of patient values. We therefore aimed to synthesize and describe patient values that may affect early phase clinical trial participation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in seven electronic databases on patient values in relation to patients' decisions to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials.

RESULTS

From 3072 retrieved articles, eleven quantitative and five qualitative studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We extracted ten patient values that can contribute to patients' decisions. Overall, patients who seek trial participation usually report hope, trust, quantity of life, altruism, perseverance, faith and/or risk tolerance as important values. Quality of life and humanity are main values of patients who refuse trial participation. Autonomy and social adherence can be reported by both trial seekers or refusers, dependent upon how they are manifested in a patient.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified patient values that frequently play a role in the decision-making process. In the setting of discussing early phase clinical trial participation with patients, healthcare professionals need to be aware of these values. This analysis supports the importance of individual exploration of values. Patients that become aware of their values, e.g. by means of interventions focused on clarifying their values, could feel more empowered to choose. Subsequently, healthcare professionals could improve their support in a patients' decision-making process and reduce the chance of decisional conflict.

Navigating choice in the face of uncertainty: using a theory informed qualitative approach to identifying potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy trial

OBJECTIVES

Bench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.

DESIGN

We used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients' hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.

PARTICIPANTS

Canadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.

RESULTS

In total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Using the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration: NCT03765177; Pre-results.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Altruism: Scoping review of the literature and future directions for HIV cure-related research

INTRODUCTION

The question of what motivates people to participate in research is particularly salient in the HIV field. While participation in HIV research was driven by survival in the 1980's and early 1990's, access to novel therapies became the primary motivator with the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in the late 1990s. In the HIV cure-related research context, the concept of altruism has remained insufficiently studied.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to better contextualize and understand how altruism is or could be operationalized in HIV cure-related research. We drew from the fields of altruism in general, clinical research, cancer, and HIV clinical research-including the HIV prevention, treatment, and cure-related research fields.

DISCUSSION

Altruism as a key motivating factor for participation in clinical research has often been intertwined with the desire for personal benefit. The cancer field informs us that reasons for participation usually are multi-faceted and complex. The HIV prevention field offers ways to organize altruism-either by the types of benefits achieved (e.g., societal versus personal), or the origin of the values that motivate research participation. The HIV treatment literature reveals the critical role of clinical interactions in fostering altruism. There remains a dearth of in-depth knowledge regarding reasons surrounding research participation and the types of altruism displayed in HIV cure-related clinical research.

CONCLUSION

Lessons learned from various research fields can guide questions which will inform the assessment of altruism in future HIV cure-related research.

Cross-Border Access to Clinical Trials in the EU: Exploratory Study on Needs and Reality

Objectives: To analyze the current situation of cross-border access to clinical trials in the EU with an overview of stakeholders' real-life experience, and to identify the needs, challenges, and potential for facilitation of cross-border access.

Methods: We employed a mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: patient representatives, investigators/physicians, policy and regulatory experts, academic and commercial sponsor representatives, ethics committee members. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. The survey was analyzed descriptively.

Results: Three hundred ninety six individuals responded to the survey. The majority were investigators/physicians (46%) and patient representatives (33%). Thirty eight individuals were interviewed. The majority were investigators/physicians (29%) and patient representatives (29%). All European regions were represented in the study. The highest response rate was received from residents of Western European countries (38% of survey respondents, 45% of interviewees), the lowest from Eastern Europe (9% of survey respondents, 5% of interviewees). The study suggested that cross-border participation in clinical trials occurs in practice, however very rarely. Ninety two percentage of survey respondents and the majority of interviewees perceived as needed the possibility to access clinical trials abroad. However, most interviewees also opined that patients ideally should not have to travel in order to access experimental treatment. The lack of access to treatment in the home country of the patient was described as the main motivation to participate in a clinical trial in another country. The logistical and financial burden for patients was perceived as the biggest challenge. Different stakeholders expressed diverging opinions regarding the allocation of financial and organizational responsibility for enabling cross-border access to clinical trials. Participants provided a number of proposals for improving the current system, which were carefully evaluated by the research team and informed future recommendations.

Conclusions: Participation in clinical trials abroad is happening rarely but should be facilitated. There was a consensus on the need for reliable and accessible information regarding practical aspects, as well as multi-stakeholder, multi-national recommendations on existing options and best practice on cross-border access to clinical trials. Broader interdisciplinary research is recommended before discussing options in the EU legislative framework to enable clearly defined conditions for cross-border access to clinical trials.

Factors affecting enrollment in randomized controlled trials conducted for patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

It is critical to obtain informed consent from eligible patients to complete clinical trials. We investigated the factors that affect the participation rates of eligible patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic breast cancer who were eligible for SELECT BC or SELECT BC-CONFIRM trials, randomized controlled trials conducted for patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic breast cancer were recruited to prospective studies, SELECT BC-FEEL and SELECT BC-FEEL II, respectively. SELECT BC FEEL and SELECT BC-FEEL II were conducted to identify the factors affecting the rates at which informed consent was obtained, using a self-administered questionnaire we developed.

RESULTS

In total, 232 patients participated in the studies. The patients who agreed to take part in the randomized trials were more likely than the refusers to answer that they decided to participate because: 'My doctor wanted me to participate in this trial' (P = 0.00000), ' My family or friends wanted me to participate in this trial' (P = 0.00000), 'Both treatment regimens used in the trial are suitable to me' (P = 0.00383), 'I know that the trial is conducted to determine which is a better treatment' (P = 0.01196), and ' I think that my participation in the trial will contribute to the benefit to future patients with the same disease' (P = 0.00756).

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance the consent rate in randomized trials of metastatic breast cancer patients, concepts of the trials must be considered important and acceptable not only by patients but also by doctors and their families.

"You would not be in a hurry to go back home": patients' willingness to participate in HIV/AIDS clinical trials at a clinical and research facility in Kampala, Uganda

Background

Few studies have examined factors associated with willingness of people living with HIV (PLHIV) to participate in HIV treatment clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the factors associated with participation of PLHIV in HIV treatment clinical trials research at a large urban clinical and research facility in Uganda.

Methods

A mixed methods study was conducted at the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI), adult HIV clinic between July 2016 and January 2017. Data were collected using structured questionnaires, focused group discussions with respondents categorised as either participated or never participated in clinical trials and key informant interviews with IDI staff. A generalized linear model with a logit link function was used for multivariate analyses while the qualitative data were summarized using a thematic approach.

Results

We enrolled a total of 202 and analysed 151 participants, 77 (51%) of whom were male with mean age of 41 years. The majority 127 (84%) expressed willingness to participate in treatment clinical trials if given an opportunity. At bivariate analysis, willingness to participate was significantly associated with respondents’ perception of a satisfactory compensation package (P-value < 0.002, 0.08–0.56), special status accorded (P-value < 0.001, 0.05–0.39) and belief that their health status would improve (P-value< 0.08, 0.03–0.58) while on the clinical trial. At multivariate analysis, a satisfactory compensation package (P-value< 0.030, 0.08–0.88) and special status accorded in clinical trials (P-value< 0.041, 0.01–0.91) remained significant. The qualitative data analysis confirmed these findings as participants valued the privilege of jumping the clinic waiting queues and spending less time in clinic, the wide range of free tests offered to trial participants, unrestricted access to senior physicians and regular communication from study team. Additionally, free meals offered during clinic visits meant that participants were not in a hurry to go back home. Barriers to participation included the perception that new drugs were being tested on them, fear of side effects like treatment failure and the uncertainty about privacy of their data.

Conclusion

We found overwhelming willingness to participate in HIV treatment clinical trials. This was largely extrinsically influenced by the perceived material and health-related benefits. Investigators should pay attention to participants’ concerns for benefits which may override the need to understand study procedures and risks.

Factors related to dropout in integrative oncology clinical trials: interim analysis of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery and Tai chi/Qigong for cancer health (The MATCH study)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the factors associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU) in an ongoing preference-based randomized waitlist controlled trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and Taichi/Qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the MATCH Study). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with LTFU. Predictors included adherence to treatment, preference vs. randomized, type of intervention (MBCR vs. TCQ) and program timing (immediate {IM} vs. waitlist control {WLC} group).

RESULTS

Data indicated that randomization to the WLC group and, once in the intervention, low adherence were the main predictors of LTFU. Participants in the WLC group were 4 times more likely to be LTFU post-randomization [OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.08-7.56, p < 0.005] than those in the IM group. Participants showing low adherence to treatment were 6 times more likely for LTFU post-intervention [5.87 (2.57-13.400; p < 0.005] and 4 times more likely for LTFU 6 months post-intervention [OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.53-10.02, p = 0.01].

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.

Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials

Background:

The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s).

Objective:

Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient.

Method:

A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed.

Result:

Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis.

Conclusion:

The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

Preliminary development of a questionnaire measuring patient views of participation in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a questionnaire for measuring patient perceptions of participating in clinical trials. Development was based on earlier research on patient views of involvement in medical care and a literature review. Patients were recruited from an ongoing clinical trial focused on cardiovascular illness and from an outpatient psychiatry department. Factor analysis was conducted on a pilot version of the questionnaire in 2016 and on a revised version in 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were recruited for the pilot study and 55 were recruited for the main study, substantially below the goal of 100 participants. Factor analysis revealed six factors measuring aspects of patients' perceptions of participating in clinical trials, including motivation, risks and benefits, the nature of the trial itself, and practical considerations, such as cost and convenience. Inter-scale correlations ranged between 0.06 and 0.64, indicating acceptable scale independence. Reliability scores (Cronbach's alphas) ranged from 0.62 to 0.85. Factor analysis results were somewhat unstable, with shared variance for several items across scales. This is likely due to the small sample sizes. In larger, more diverse patient samples, this questionnaire can be useful for measuring and incorporating patients' views into the design and execution of clinical trials.

Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

PURPOSE

Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ²-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff (P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Enrolling in Clinical Research While Incarcerated: What Influences Participants' Decisions?

As a 2006 Institute of Medicine report highlights, surprisingly little empirical attention has been paid to how prisoners arrive at decisions to participate in modern research. With our study, we aimed to fill this gap by identifying a more comprehensive range of factors as reported by prisoners themselves during semistructured interviews. Our participants described a diverse range of motives, both favoring and opposing their eventual decision to join. Many are well-recognized considerations among nonincarcerated clinical research participants, including a desire for various forms of personal benefit, altruism, and concern about study risks and inconveniences. However, a number of influences seem unique to prisoners. Participants did not report that they were not coerced into enrolling, and they have even been under pressure not to enroll. However, many sought to enroll in order to obtain access to better health care, raising a concern about whether they were unfairly exploited.

Enrolling Genomics Research Participants through a Clinical Setting: the Impact of Existing Clinical Relationships on Informed Consent and Expectations for Return of Research Results

Genetic counselors working in a clinical setting may find themselves recruiting, enrolling, and returning results for genomic research, and existing clinical relationships with study participants may impact these research interactions. We present a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of participants enrolled in a genome sequencing/exome sequencing (GS/ES) study at the same institution where they receive clinical care. Interviews were coded for motivations to participate and expectations of this research. The interviews revealed common motivations for participation, including altruism and hope for benefit for themselves, family members, and/or others with their condition. Additionally, themes emerged related to unintentional influence based on trust of the clinical provider that recruited them to the study. Participant trust in the enrolling provider at times appeared to extend to the study team to decide which research results to return and to do so in an appropriate format. Participants also based expectations for research results return on previous clinical genetic testing experiences, which may or may not be realistic depending on study design. It is imperative that genetic counselors enrolling patients into research studies be aware of the potential influence of their clinical relationship on potential subjects, be transparent about their role on the study team, and help set expectations about the study process, including results return.

Influence of early phase clinical trial enrollment on patterns of end-of-life care for children with advanced cancer

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 125 pediatric oncology patients who died in 2010-2014 to explore how healthcare utilization, pediatric palliative care (PPC) receipt, and end-of-life care (EOLC) differed between patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials (EP) and those not enrolled (NEP). Baseline characteristics and healthcare utilization did not significantly differ between groups. EP patients received PPC consultation closer to death than NEP patients (median days before death = 58 [interquartile range = 16-84] vs. 85 [32-173]; P = 0.04). Our findings suggest that early phase trial enrollment does not substantially alter EOLC for children with advanced cancer but may contribute to later PPC engagement. Future studies should definitively assess the relationship between trial enrollment and PPC timing.

A qualitative study of decision-making on Phase III randomized clinical trial participation in paediatric oncology: Adolescents' and parents' perspectives and preferences

AIM

To explore parents' and adolescents' motives for accepting/declining participation in the ALL2008 trials and adolescents' involvement in the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia treated on the Nordic Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology ALL2008 protocol were eligible for two randomizations testing 6-mercaptopurine treatment intensifications to improve efficacy and Asparaginase de-escalation to reduce toxicity. We recently reported that while adolescents favoured treatment reduction, parents of young children favoured treatment intensification.

DESIGN

A qualitative, exploratory study.

METHODS

A maximum variation sampling strategy was used. Five adolescents aged 12-17 years, six parents of adolescents and five parents of children aged 1-12 years were interviewed in the period March-May 2015. Data were analysed using content analysis.

FINDINGS

Adolescents and parents emphasized the importance of adolescents' active participation in decisions regarding enrolment into clinical trials. A majority of adolescents were either final or collaborative decision-makers. Parents stated that in case of disagreement, they would overrule the adolescents' decision. There were no differences between motivations of preferences held by parents of children or adolescents, respectively. Decisions were based on subjective values attributed to cure contra toxicity and individual preferences for either standard or experimental treatment. The possibility of a negative outcome induced fear of decisional regret and distress by the parents, yet they invested considerable trust in the physician's expertise.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the importance of adolescents' active involvement in consent conferences. Research on management of disagreements between adolescents and parents in trial decisions is needed.

Understanding how coping strategies and quality of life maintain hope in patients deliberating phase I trial participation

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand how hope and motivation of patients considering phase I trial participation are affected by psychological factors such as coping strategies and locus of control (LoC) and general well-being as measured by the quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

An exploratory cross-sectional study was performed in patients with incurable cancer (N = 135) referred to our phase I unit for the first time. Patients were potentially eligible for phase I trial participation and participated in our study while deliberating phase I trial participation. We used questionnaires on hope, motivation to participate, coping, LoC, and QoL. To investigate the nature and magnitude of the relationships between the scales, a structural equation modeling (SEM) was fitted to the data.

RESULTS

Hope significantly predicted the motivation to participate in phase I trials. Predictors of hope were a combination of flexible and tenacious goal pursuit (both P < .01), internal LoC (P < .01), and QoL (P < .01). The SEM showed an exact fit to the data, using a null hypothesis significance test: chi-square (8) = 9.30, P = .32.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considering phase I trial participation seem to use a pact of tenacious and flexible coping and control to stay hopeful. Furthermore, hope and QoL positively affected each other. The psychological pact may promote an adaptation enabling them to adjust to difficult circumstances by unconsciously ignoring information, called dissonance reduction. This mechanism may impair their ability to provide a valid informed consent. We suggest including a systematic exploration of patients' social context and values before proposing a phase I trial.

Frequency and Predictors of Acute Hospitalization Before Death in Patients With Glioblastoma

CONTEXT

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating and incurable neuro-oncologic disease, and issues related to the end of life are almost invariably a matter of "when," not a matter of "if." Optimizing symptom management and quality of life in later stages of disease is of the utmost priority.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the frequency of and factors associated with late acute hospital admission before death in patients with GBM.

METHODS

Case-control study comparing patients with GBM admitted to the hospital within one month of death to those without late hospital admission.

RESULTS

Of 385 GBM patients followed to death at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 164 (42.6%) were admitted within a month of death, most frequently (140, or 85%) to manage neurologic decline. Of these, 56 (34%) had intensive care unit care during this admission and 22 (13%), 18 (11%), and 2 (1%) received mechanical ventilation, enteral feeding tubes, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, respectively. In multivariable analysis, in-hospital chaplaincy consultation, and participation in a therapeutic clinical trial, both at any time in the GBM disease course, were significantly associated with late hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Late hospitalization is frequent in GBM and often involves intensive care unit care in the management of clinical events that are part of the GBM dying process. Patients with a tendency to use religious support and those enrolled in clinical trials may be at greater risk for late hospitalization. Dedicated prospective study is needed to determine predictors of late hospitalization and to examine the impact of late acute medical care on quality of life in GBM.

Non-Publication Is Common among Phase 1, Single-Center, Not Prospectively Registered, or Early Terminated Clinical Drug Trials

The objective of this study was to investigate the occurrence and determinants of non-publication of clinical drug trials in the Netherlands.All clinical drug trials reviewed by the 28 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the Netherlands in 2007 were followed-up from approval to publication. Candidate determinants were the sponsor, phase, applicant, centers, therapeutic effect expected, type of trial, approval status of the drug(s), drug type, participant category, oncology or other disease area, prospective registration, and early termination. The main outcome was publication as peer reviewed article. The percentage of trials that were published, crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to quantify the associations between determinants and publication. In 2007, 622 clinical drug trials were reviewed by IRBs in the Netherlands. By the end of follow-up, 19 of these were rejected by the IRB, another 19 never started inclusion, and 10 were still running. Of the 574 trials remaining in the analysis, 334 (58%) were published as peer-reviewed article. The multivariable logistic regression model identified the following determinants with a robust, statistically significant association with publication: phase 2 (60% published; adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.9), phase 3 (73% published; adjusted OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.7-10.0), and trials not belonging to phase 1-4 (60% published; adjusted OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 6.5) compared to phase 1 trials (35% published); trials with a company or investigator as applicant (63% published) compared to trials with a Contract Research Organization (CRO) as applicant (50% published; adjusted OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.8); and multicenter trials also conducted in other EU countries (68% published; adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.4) or also outside the European Union (72% published; adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.0) compared to single-center trials (45% published). Trials that were not prospectively registered (48% published) had a lower likelihood of publication compared to prospectively registered trials (75% published; adjusted OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), as well as trials that were terminated early (33% published) compared to trials that were completed as planned (64% published; adjusted OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.3). The non-publication rate of clinical trials seems to have improved compared to previous inception cohorts, but is still far from optimal, in particular among phase 1, single-center, not prospectively registered, and early terminated trials.

Stakeholder views on participant selection for first-in-human trials in cancer nanomedicine

BACKGROUND

Participant selection for first-in-human (fih) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for fih trials in cancer nanomedicine.

METHODS

We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in fih nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a fih cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one.

RESULTS

Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into fih trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into fih trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus.

Evaluation of Novel Targeted Therapies in Aggressive Biology Sarcoma Patients after progression from US FDA approved Therapies

Prognosis of patients with advanced sarcoma after progression from FDA approved therapies remains grim. In this study, clinical outcomes of 100 patients with advanced sarcoma who received treatment on novel targeted therapy trials were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included best response, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Median patient age was 48 years (range 14-80). Patients had received a median of 2 prior lines of systemic treatment. Phase I treatments were anti-VEGF-based (n = 45), mTOR inhibitor-based (n = 15), and anti-VEGF + mTOR inhibitor-based (n = 17) or involved other targets (n = 23). Best responses included partial response (n = 4) and stable disease (n = 57). Clinical benefit rate was 36% (95% confidence interval 27-46%). Median OS was 9.6 months (95% Confidence Interval 8.1-14.2); median PFS was 3.5 months (95% Confidence Interval 2.4-4.7). RMH prognostic score of 2 or 3 was associated with lower median OS (log-rank p-value < 0.0001) and PFS (log-rank p-value 0.0081). Receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy as part of phase I trial was also associated with shorter median OS (log-rank p-value 0.039). Patients with advanced sarcoma treated on phase I clinical trials had a clinical benefit rate of 36% and RMH score predicted survival.

PRognostic factor of Early Death In phase II Trials or the end of 'sufficient life expectancy' as an inclusion criterion? (PREDIT model)

Background

Optimizing patient selection is a necessary step to design better clinical trials. ‘Life expectancy’ is a frequent inclusion criterion in phase II trial protocols, a measure that is subjective and often difficult to estimate. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with early death in patients included in phase II studies.

Methods

We retrospectively collected medical records of patients with advanced solid tumors included in phase II trials in two French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (Bordeaux, Center 1 set; Lille, Center 2 set). We analyzed patients’ baseline characteristics. Predictive factors associated with early death (mortality at 3 months) were identified by logistic regression. We built a model (PREDIT, PRognostic factor of Early Death In phase II Trials) based on prognostic factors isolated from the final multivariate model.

Results

Center 1 and 2 sets included 303 and 227 patients, respectively. Patients from Center 1 and 2 sets differed in tumor site, urological (26 % vs 15 %) and gastrointestinal (18 % vs 28 %) and in lung metastasis incidence (10 % vs 49 %). Overall survival (OS) at 3 months was 88 % (95 % CI [83.5; 91.0], Center 1 set) and 91 % (95 % CI [86.7; 94.2], Center 2 set). Presence of a ‘life expectancy’ inclusion criterion did not improve the 3-month OS (HR 0.6, 95 % CI [0.2; 1.2], p = 0.2325). Independent factors of early death were an ECOG score of 2 (OR 13.3, 95%CI [4.1; 43.4]), hyperleukocytosis (OR 5.5, 95 % CI [1.9; 16.3]) and anemia (OR 2.8, 95 % CI [1.1; 7.1]). Same predictive factors but with different association levels were found in the Center 2 set. Using the Center 1 set, ROC analysis shows a good discrimination to predict early death (AUC: 0.89 at 3 months and 0.86 at 6 months).

Conclusions

Risk modeling in two independent cancer populations based on simple clinical parameters showed that baseline ECOG of 2, hyperleukocytosis and anemia are strong early-death predictive factors. This model allows identifying patients who may not benefit from a phase II trial investigational drug and may, therefore, represent a helpful tool to select patients for phase II trial entry.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2819-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and Validation of the Biomedical Research Trust Scale (BRTS) in English and Spanish

This study developed and validated the Biomedical Research Trust Scale (BRTS), a 10-item measure of global trust in biomedical research, in English and Spanish (BRTS-SP). In total, 85 English- and 85 Spanish-speaking participants completed the BRTS or BRTS-SP, as well as measures of biobanking attitudes, self-efficacy, receptivity, and intentions to donate blood or urine. Results indicated the BRTS and BRTS-SP showed adequate internal consistency in both English and Spanish. In addition, greater levels of trust in biomedical research were significantly associated with greater self-efficacy, receptivity, attitudes, and intentions to donate blood and urine in English-speaking participants, and self-efficacy and intention to donate urine in Spanish-speaking participants. These results support the use of the BRTS and BRTS-SP among English- and Spanish-speaking community members.

Maternal participant experience in a South African birth cohort study enrolling healthy pregnant women and their infants

BACKGROUND

Critical to conducting high quality research is the ability to attract and retain participants, especially for longitudinal studies. Understanding participant experiences and motivators or barriers to participating in clinical research is crucial. There are limited data on healthy participant experiences in longitudinal research, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This study aims to investigate quantitatively participant experiences in a South African birth cohort study.

METHODS

Maternal participant experience was evaluated by a self-administered survey in the Drakenstein Child Health Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study investigating the early life determinants of child health. Pregnant mothers, enrolled during the second trimester, were followed through childbirth and the early childhood years. Satisfaction scores were derived from the participant experience survey and quantitatively analyzed; associations between satisfaction scores and sociodemographic variables were then investigated using a linear regression model.

RESULTS

Data were included from 585 pregnant mothers (median age 26.6 years), who had participated in the study for a median time of 16 months. Overall participant satisfaction was high (median score 51/60) and associated with increased attendance of study visits. Reasons for participating were a belief that involvement would improve their health, their child's health or the health of family and friends. Potential reasons for leaving the study were inconvenience, not receiving clinical or study results, and unexpected changes in study visits or procedures. Variables associated with higher overall satisfaction scores were no prior participation in research, higher socioeconomic status, less intensive follow-up schedules and having experienced stressful life events in the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction scores were high and associated with increased visit attendance. Participants' perceived benefits of study participation, most notably the potential for an improvement in the health of their child, were a significant motivator to enroll and remain in the study. The consistent theme of perceived health benefits as a motivator to join and remain in the study raises the question of whether participation in research results in actual improvements in health.

Patients' willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: results of a prospective patient survey

Background

Recruitment to clinical trials can be challenging and slower than anticipated. This prospective patient survey aimed to investigate the proportion of patients approached about a trial who agree to participate, their motivations for trial participation and their views on aspects of cancer research.

Methods

Patients who had been approached about participation in any clinical trials in the Gastrointestinal and Lymphoma Unit at the Royal Marsden were invited to complete a questionnaire. The statistical analysis is mainly descriptive, with percentages being reported. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine any associations between patient characteristics and patient responses.

Results

From August 2013–July 2014, 276 patients received 298 clinical trial patient information sheets and were asked to complete the questionnaire. The majority of patients (263 patients, 88 %) consented to a clinical trial and 249 of the 263 patients (95 %) completed the questionnaire. Multiple factors influenced decisions to participate in clinical trials, with patients stating that the most important reasons were that the trial offered the best treatment available and that the trial results could benefit others. Of the 249 questionnaire respondents, 78 % would donate their tissue for genetic research, 75 % would consider participating in studies requiring a research biopsy and 75 % felt that patients should be informed of trial results. Patients treated with palliative intent and those who had received multiple lines of treatment were more willing to consider research biopsies. Of the patients approached about a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product, 48–50 % would have liked more information on the study drugs/procedures.

Conclusion

The majority of patients approached about a clinical trial consented to one or more trials. Patients’ motivations for trial participation included potential personal benefit and altruistic reasons. A high proportion of patients were willing to donate tissue for research and to consider trials involving repeat biopsies. The majority of patients feel that participants should be informed of trial results and there is a group of patients who would like more detailed trial information.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1105-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision-Making Process Related to Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials: A Nonsystematic Review of the Existing Evidence

Due to the lack of other treatment options, patient candidates for participation in phase I clinical trials are considered the most vulnerable, and many ethical concerns have emerged regarding the informed consent process used in the experimental design of such trials. Starting with these considerations, this nonsystematic review is aimed at analyzing the decision-making processes underlying patients' decision about whether to participate (or not) in phase I trials in order to clarify the cognitive and emotional aspects most strongly implicated in this decision. Considering that there is no uniform decision calculus and that many different variables other than the patient-physician relationship (including demographic, clinical, and personal characteristics) may influence patients' preferences for and processing of information, we conclude that patients' informed decision-making can be facilitated by creating a rigorously developed, calibrated, and validated computer tool modeled on each single patient's knowledge, values, and emotional and cognitive decisional skills. Such a tool will also help oncologists to provide tailored medical information that is useful to improve the shared decision-making process, thereby possibly increasing patient participation in clinical trials.

Advanced Cancer Patients' Understanding and Perceptions of Phase I Clinical Trials

This questionnaire-based study assessed the understanding and perceptions of cancer patients who were participating in a Phase I clinical trial at baseline and determined any changes after enrollment. Thirty-six patients participated. Less than one-third of respondents (28.5%) thought the purpose of Phase I trials was dose escalation for safety and efficacy. Patients anticipated varying degree of therapeutic benefit ranging from stable disease (47.1%) to complete shrinkage of the tumor (32.4%). No change in measured themes was observed. Patients participating in Phase I trials need further education to improve their understanding of the true intent of early Phase trials.

"Do not resuscitate" decisions in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A secondary analysis of clinical trial data

RATIONALE

Factors and outcomes associated with end-of-life decision-making among patients during clinical trials in the intensive care unit are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine patterns and outcomes of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) decisions among critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) enrolled in a clinical trial.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data from the ARDS Network Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), collected between 2000 and 2005. We calculated mortality outcomes stratified by code status, and compared baseline characteristics of patients who became DNR during the trial with participants who remained full code.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 809 FACTT participants with a code status recorded, 232 (28.7%) elected DNR status. Specifically, 37 (15.9%) chose to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation alone, 44 (19.0%) elected to withhold some life support measures in addition to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 151 (65.1%) had life support withdrawn. Admission severity of illness as measured by APACHE III score was strongly associated with election of DNR status (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-2.62; P < 0.0001). Almost all (97.0%; 225 of 232) patients who selected DNR status died, and 79% (225 of 284) of patients who died during the trial were DNR. Among patients who chose DNR status but did not elect withdrawal of life support, 91% (74 of 81) died.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of deaths among clinical trial patients with ARDS were preceded by a DNR order. Unlike other studies of end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit, nearly all patients who became DNR died. The impact of variation of practice in end-of-life decision-making during clinical trials warrants further study.

Knowledge and attitudes regarding medical research studies among patients with breast cancer and gynecological diseases

Background

Medical research studies are becoming increasingly important for optimizing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. Participation in research studies can have many benefits for patients. In randomized and controlled clinical studies, they can receive the best possible medical care currently available. However, only a small proportion of patients nowadays are treated within the framework of medical research. The primary endpoint of this study was to discover what level of knowledge patients have about clinical studies and how they currently perceive them, in order to identify ways of optimizing the information provided about studies from the patients’ point of view.

Methods

The study included 2546 patients (breast cancer 21.6 %, gynecological cancer 8.3 %, obstetrics 32.7 %, endometriosis 7.8 %, fertility treatment 3.2 %, other benign gynecological illnesses 19.2 %, no information for 7.2 %) in the outpatient clinic (45.2 %) and in the in-patient sector (54.8 %) at the Department of Gynecology at Erlangen University Hospital and associated centers. In the single-center study, conducted between January 2011 and January 2012, the patients were asked about their level of knowledge regarding the background to medical research studies and the ways in which they are carried out and used. The patients were also asked how they perceived medical studies and how they thought study conditions might be optimized. The three-page questionnaire was included in the feedback sheet received by patients as part of the hospital’s quality management system.

Results

As a whole, the group only had moderate knowledge about clinical studies. A majority of the respondents considered that studies were valuable (91.6 %), but only a few were also willing to take part in them (58.4 %). Knowledge and willingness to participate strongly depended on age (P < 0.001), educational level (P < 0.001) and patient group (P < 0.001). Most patients would prefer to decide about participating in studies through a discussion with their outpatient physicians.

Conclusions

The information that patients have about clinical studies affects whether they participate in them. It is therefore extremely important for patients to be well informed, for their anxieties about participation to be relieved, and for the benefits of participation to be explained to them.

The effects of cancer research participation on patient experience: a mixed-methods analysis

Patient-reported benefits of research participation have been described by study participants; however, many studies have small sample sizes or are limited to patient groups with poor prognoses. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of research participation on patient experience using survey responses from a large, national sample of cancer patients (N = 66 462) and interviews with breast cancer patients attending a London trust. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate associations between taking part in research and positive patient experience. Based on our analysis, patients who participated in research were more likely to rate their overall care and treatment as 'very good/excellent' (OR_adj :1.64, 95%CI: 1.53-1.76, P < 0.001) and to describe positive patient experiences, such as better access to non-standard care, better interactions with staff and being treated as an individual. However, findings from our interviews indicated that there was no common understanding of what constitutes cancer research and no clear delineation between research participation and standard care, from the patient perspective. Further work to explore how participation positively influences patient experience would be useful to develop strategies to improve care and treatment for all patients regardless of whether or not they choose, or have the opportunity, to take part in research.

Hope for health and health care

Virtually all activities of health care are motivated at some level by hope. Patients hope for a cure; for relief from pain; for a return home. Physicians hope to prevent illness in their patients; to make the correct diagnosis when illness presents itself; that their prescribed treatments will be effective. Researchers hope to learn more about the causes of illness; to discover new and more effective treatments; to understand how treatments work. Ultimately, all who work in health care hope to offer their patients hope. In this paper, I offer a brief analysis of hope, considering the definitions of Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Thomas Aquinas. I then differentiate shallow and deep hope and show how hope in health care can remain shallow. Next, I explore what a philosophy of deep hope in health care might look like, drawing important points from Ernst Bloch and Gabriel Marcel. Finally, I suggest some implications of this philosophy of hope for patients, physicians, and researchers.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.