Bringing New Meaning to the Term "Adaptive Trial": Challenges of Conducting Clinical Research During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Implications for Implementation Science

The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey

Background

COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs' responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active.

Methods

The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test.

Results

A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs.

Conclusions

Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.

Drug repurposing for COVID-19: current evidence from randomized controlled adaptive platform trials and living systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a race to develop effective treatments largely through drug repurposing via adaptive platform trials on a global scale. Drug repurposing trials have focused on potential antiviral therapies aimed at preventing viral replication, anti-inflammatory agents, antithrombotic agents and immune modulators through a number of adaptive platform trials. Living systematic reviews have also enabled evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis as clinical trial data emerge globally.

SOURCES OF DATA

Recent published literature.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.

GROWING POINTS

Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.

The Future of Vasculitis: A Manifesto

Predictions for a general path forward in vasculitis care and research are provided based on advances made in the past 20 years. Prospects for advances in translational research with potential to improve care are highlighted, including identification of hemato-inflammatory diseases, autoantigens, disease mechanisms in animal models, and biomarkers. A list of active randomized trials is provided, and areas of potential paradigm shifts in care are highlighted. The importance of patient involvement and international collaboration is noted, and a plea is made for innovative trial designs that would improve access of patients to trials and to clinical experts at referral centers.

Subcutaneous sarilumab for the treatment of hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID19 disease: A pragmatic, embedded randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pragmatic, embedded, adaptive trial was to measure the effectiveness of the subcutaneous anti-IL-6R antibody sarilumab, when added to an evolving standard of care (SOC), for clinical management of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease.

DESIGN

Two-arm, randomized, open-label controlled trial comparing SOC alone to SOC plus sarilumab. The trial used a randomized play-the-winner design and was fully embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) system.

SETTING

5 VA Medical Centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized patients with clinical criteria for moderate to severe COVID-19 but not requiring mechanical ventilation, and a diagnostic test positive for SARS-CoV-2.

INTERVENTIONS

Sarilumab, 200 or 400 mg subcutaneous injection. SOC was not pre-specified and could vary over time, e.g., to include antiviral or other anti-inflammatory drugs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was intubation or death within 14 days of randomization. All data were extracted remotely from the EHR.

RESULTS

Among 162 eligible patients, 53 consented, and 50 were evaluated for the primary endpoint of intubation or death. This occurred in 5/20 and 1/30 of participants in the sarilumab and SOC arms respectively, with the majority occurring in the initial 9 participants (3/4 in the sarilumab and 1/5 in the SOC) before the sarilumab dose was increased to 400 mg and before remdesivir and dexamethasone were widely adopted. After interim review, the unblinded Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be stopped due to concern for safety: a high probability that rates of intubation or death were higher with addition of sarilumab to SOC (92.6%), and a very low probability (3.4%) that sarilumab would be found to be superior.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized trial of patients hospitalized due to respiratory compromise from COVID-19 but not mechanical ventilation found no benefit from subcutaneous sarilumab when added to an evolving SOC. The numbers of patients and events were too low to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn, but this study contributes valuable information about the role of subcutaneous IL-6R inhibition in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods developed and piloted during this trial will be useful in conducting future studies more efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov-NCT04359901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359901?cond=NCT04359901&draw=2&rank=1.

Reconsidering 'minimal risk' to expand the repertoire of trials with waiver of informed consent for research

BACKGROUND

Progress in therapeutic research is slowed by the regulatory burden of clinical trials, which provide the best evidence for guiding treatment. There is a long delay from evidence generation to adoption, highlighting the need for designs that link evidence generation to implementation.

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical trial designs that confer minimal risk above that inherent in clinical care, to obviate the need for cumbersome consenting processes to enrol patients in prospective clinical research studies. These designs extend the scope of the Learning Healthcare System, a framework for leveraging retrospective 'big data' to advance clinical research, to include data collected from prospective controlled trials.

SUMMARY

Pragmatic trials may use simplified eligibility criteria, unblinded interventions and objective outcome measures that can all be monitored through the electronic health records (EHR), to reduce costs and speed study conduct. Most pragmatic trials continue to suffer from substantial regulatory burden. Written consent to participate in research can be waived only if the research produces minimal risk above what is encountered in everyday life. However, the 'consent' processes for prescribing Federal Drug Administration-approved medications in clinical medicine are informal, even when they involve decisions of uncertain benefit and higher levels of risk. We propose that trial designs that mimic clinical decision-making in areas of uncertainty (clinical equipoise) and in which no data are generated outside of usual care (ideally by EHR embedding) confer minimal additional risk. Trial designs meeting this standard could, therefore, be conducted with minimal documentation of consent, even when interventions contain different risks. To align with risk encountered in clinical practice, allocation to treatment arms should change (adaptive randomisation) as data are collected and analysed. Embedding of informatics tools into the EHR has the additional benefit that, as adaptive randomisation progresses, evidence-generation transitions into implementation via decision-support tools-the ultimate realisation of the Learning Healthcare System.

Implementation of documented and written informed consent for clinical trials of communicable diseases: Lessons learned, barriers, solutions, future directions identified during the conduct of a COVID-19 clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The communicable nature of many infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2, creates challenges for implementing and obtaining regulatory-compliant written informed consent. The goal of this project was to identify and evaluate processes that address these barriers while maintaining clinical and research staff safety.

METHODS

We reviewed Federal Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) guidance about informed consent during the COVID-19 pandemic, and identified and pilot-tested several mechanisms for obtaining regulatory-compliant consent during our COVID-19 therapeutics clinical trial.

RESULTS

Several processes were identified. These included a standard face-to-face consent with a plan for maintaining a paper copy of the signed consent form, a phone or video chat consent process that included taking a picture of the signed consent form or a screen shot of the signed document during a video chat, integration of the consent forms into software embedded within the electronic health record, and secure software programs with electronic signature. These processes are FDA-compliant but time-intensive, often requiring four or more hours of coordination between the clinical team, research staff, patients, and legally authorized representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies could evaluate how to improve efficiency, and whether some elements of the consenting process, such as the requirement for documented written signed consent, rather than a witnessed oral consent, is an acceptable standard for research participants with communicable diseases.

How Are Emerging Data Translated Into Clinical Practice? A Mixed Methods Investigation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Institutional Treatment Protocols

BACKGROUND

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was minimal data to guide treatment, and we lacked understanding of how clinicians translated this limited evidence base for potential therapeutics to bedside care. Our objective was to systematically determine how emerging data about COVID-19 treatments was implemented by analyzing institutional treatment protocols.

METHODS

Treatment protocols from North American healthcare facilities and recommendations from guideline-issuing bodies were collected. Qualitative data on treatment regimens and their applications were extracted using an adapted National Institutes of Health/US Food and Drug Administration experimental therapeutics framework. Structured data on risk factor and severity of illness scoring systems were extracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 105 independent protocols. Guideline-issuing organizations published recommendations after the initial peak of the pandemic in many regions and generally recommended clinical trial referral, with limited additional guidance. Facility-specific protocols favored offering some treatment (96.8%, N = 92 of 95), most commonly, hydroxychloroquine (90.5%), followed by remdesivir and interleukin-6 inhibitors. Recommendation for clinical trial enrollment was limited largely to academic medical centers (19 of 52 vs 9 of 43 community/Veterans Affairs [VA]), which were more likely to have access to research studies. Other themes identified included urgent protocol development, plans for rapid updates, contradictory statements, and entirely missing sections, with section headings but no content other than "in process."

CONCLUSIONS

In the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging information was rapidly implemented by institutions into clinical practice and, unlike recommendations from guideline-issuing bodies, heavily favored administering some form of therapy. Understanding how and why evidence is translated into clinical care is critical to improve processes for other emerging diseases.

Rapid implementation of a modular clinical trial informatics solution for COVID-19 research

Veterans Health Administration (VHA) services are most frequently used by patients 65 years and older, an age group that is disproportionally affected by COVID-19. Here we describe a modular Clinical Trial Informatics Solution (CTIS) that was rapidly developed and deployed to support a multi-hospital embedded pragmatic clinical trial in COVID-19 patients within the VHA. Our CTIS includes tools for patient eligibility screening, informed consent tracking, treatment randomization, EHR data transformation for reporting and interfaces for patient outcome and adverse event tracking. We hope our CTIS component descriptions and practical lessons learned will serve as a useful building block for others creating their own clinical trial tools and have made application and database code publicly available.