A Novel Collaborative Approach to Building Better Clinical Trials: New Insights From a Patient Engagement Workshop to Propel Patient-Centricity Forward

The Cure SMA Clinical Trial Experience Survey: A Study of Trial Participant Perspectives on Clinical Trial Management and Patient-Centric Management Practices

Introduction

Understanding clinical trial experiences can illuminate opportunities to optimize trial design and management, with potential benefits for recruitment and retention. This study sought to better understand clinical trial participant experiences and attitudes within spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and how the evolving treatment landscape and participant characteristics may predict attitudes.

Methods

A survey was developed following a review of published literature and discussions with caregivers of SMA trial participants. This was distributed via email to known trial participants in Cure SMA’s database, announcements in Cure SMA’s newsletter, and emails to SMA clinical trial principal investigators.

Results

Seventy complete surveys reflecting unique clinical trial experiences were included in analysis. Responses revealed positive attitudes about clinical trial management overall. Top motivators for trial participation included clinical benefit, investigational drug access, and the opportunity to help others. Top concerns were safety, whether benefits would justify risks, and concerns about pain accompanying tests. The greatest stressors were fear of pain, adverse event concerns, and challenges managing medical complications of SMA. Top benefits of trial participation were hope for a better future, helping others, and relationships with the study team. In regression analysis, participant gender, age, and race all emerged as significant predictors (p < 0.05) of motivators, concerns, stressors, and benefits, as did respondent type, knowledge about SMA, distance to the trial site, and treatment era. Top recommendations for improving study management all related to receiving more information.

Conclusion

This research provides new perspective on patient experiences in SMA clinical trials. It underscores the importance of information and efforts to anticipate and accommodate participant needs. These findings may inform study design and interactions with research participants. They may become especially important in supporting recruitment and retention as more treatment options become available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-022-00360-w.

Clinical trials can be stressful experiences for patients and their caregivers, especially when participants are affected by serious diseases. By understanding trial participants’ attitudes and experiences, researchers may be better able to accommodate their interests when designing and conducting research studies. This study sought insight into attitudes and experiences of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) clinical trial participants by surveying people who participated in SMA clinical trials in the USA. The data used in analysis reflected 70 unique clinical trial experiences. Survey responses revealed positive attitudes about clinical trial management overall. Top motivators for trial participation included clinical benefit, investigational drug access, and the opportunity to help others. Top concerns were safety, whether benefits would justify risks, and concerns about pain accompanying tests. The greatest stressors were fear of pain, adverse event concerns, and challenges managing medical complications of SMA. Top benefits of trial participation were hope for a better future, helping others, and relationships with the study team. Whether or not specific motivators, concerns, stressors, and benefits were important was predicted by participant gender, age, and race, as well as respondent type (participant or caregiver), knowledge about SMA, distance to the trial site, and treatment era. Top recommendations for improving study management all related to receiving more information. This research provides new perspective on patient experiences in SMA clinical trials, and may be used to inform future study design and interactions with research participants.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods

We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate’s viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results

We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions

PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

A public and patient consultation process as an aid to design a person-centred randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and members of the public, together with researchers, in decisions about how studies are designed and conducted can create a study that is more person-centred. The aim of this consultation process was to explore ways of designing a study which takes the person into consideration for the randomized clinical study entitled 'Biomechanical Effects of Manual Therapy-A Feasibility Study' using the novel approach of usability testing.

DESIGN

Patient and public volunteers were sought with experience of low back pain. Volunteers were invited to participate in usability testing (a physical walkthrough) of the proposed study method. This was followed by a discussion of areas where usability testing could not be used, such as recruitment strategies, continuity of participant care and dissemination of results. Resulting feedback was considered by the research team and alterations to the original study method were incorporated, provided the research questions could be answered and were practical within the resources available.

RESULTS

Additional recruitment strategies were proposed. Alterations to the study included reduction in study time burden; completion of study paperwork in a quieter location; continuity of participant care after the study; and methods of dissemination of overall study results to participants.

CONCLUSION

The consultation process used the unique method of usability testing, together with a post-usability discussion, and resulted in alterations to the future study which may facilitate making it more person-centred.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and public developed the future study design but did not participate in manuscript preparation.

Engaging ALS patients and caregivers (the ALS research ambassadors) to help design the REFINE-ALS biomarker study

In the planning and design of the Radicava/Edaravone Findings in Biomarkers From Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (REFINE-ALS) study, we sought to elicit feedback from patients with ALS and their caregivers to ensure that patient-centric issues would be addressed. Ten ALS Clinical Research Learning Institute (ALS-CRLI) Research Ambassadors participated in 2 meetings. They provided perspectives on patients' interest in the study, the schedule of study visits, and data sharing. The findings were used to help revise the study design, as appropriate. Key concerns identified were (1) the frequency of sample collections, (2) participant travel burden, (3) enrollment criteria, and (4) data reporting and sharing with participants. Several of the identified issues were promptly addressed. The number of visits was reduced, travel optimized, entry criteria clarified, and plans for sharing participants' data with them were codified. The feedback from the Ambassadors was substantive and resulted in constructive patient-centric changes to the study protocol.