Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment

PET-CT-guided, symptom-based, patient-initiated surveillance versus clinical follow-up in head neck cancer patients (PETNECK2): study protocol for a multicentre feasibility study and non-inferiority, randomised, phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of treated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients develop recurrence. The risk of recurrence declines with time from treatment. Current guidelines recommend clinical follow-up every two months for the first two years after treatment, with reducing intensity over the next three years. However, evidence for the effectiveness of these regimes in detecting recurrence is lacking, with calls for more flexible, patient-centred follow-up strategies.

METHODS

PETNECK2 is a UK-based multi-centre programme examining a new paradigm of follow-up, using positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)-guided, symptom-based, patient-initiated surveillance. This paradigm is being tested in a unblinded, non-inferiority, phase III, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients with HNC, one year after completing curative intent treatment, with no clinical symptoms or signs of loco-regional or distant metastasis will be randomised using a 1:1 allocation ratio to either regular scheduled follow-up, or to PET-CT guided, patient-initiated follow-up. Patients at a low risk of recurrence (negative PET-CT) will receive a face-to-face education session along with an Information and Support (I&S) resource package to monitor symptoms and be in control of initiating an urgent appointment when required. The primary outcome of the RCT is overall survival. The RCT also has an in-built pilot, a nested QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI), and a nested mixed-methods study on patient experience and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). An initial, single-arm feasibility study has been completed which determined the acceptability of the patient-initiated surveillance intervention, the completion rates of baseline questionnaires, and optimised the I&S resource prior to implementation in the RCT.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesise that combining an additional 12-month post-treatment PET-CT scan and I&S resource will both identify patients with asymptomatic recurrence and identify those at low risk of future recurrence who will be empowered to monitor their symptoms and seek early clinical follow-up when recurrence is suspected. This change to a patient-centred model of care may have effects on both quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 13,709,798; 15-Oct-2021.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit

BACKGROUND

Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK.

MAIN TEXT

We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Effectiveness and safety of menopause treatments: pitfalls of available evidence and future research need

By 2050 more than 1.6 billion women worldwide will be of post-reproductive age, with >75% reporting severe menopausal symptoms. The last few years saw a gradual uplift in public awareness reaffirming the health needs of women with menopause. Still, effective translation of available evidence on menopause treatments is hindered by several methodological limitations and poor research conduct. We argue that a paradigm shift is required in menopause research to address the remaining knowledge gap and guide safe evidence-based care provision. A critical misconception across studies on menopause is the assumption that women represent a homogeneous group who respond similarly to a particular therapy irrespective of their exposure and individual risk factors. We highlight potential solutions to optimize the quality of future research in menopause including adopting robust trial methodology, standardize outcome reporting to capture quality-of-life measures, and improve lay patient and public involvement in future research.

The Hand and Wrist: AntImicrobials and Infection (HAWAII) trial

BACKGROUND

Hand trauma, comprising injuries to both the hand and wrist, affects over five million people per year in the NHS, resulting in 250 000 operations each year. Surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery leads to significant morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures may reduce SSI in major abdominal surgery but have never been tested in hand trauma. Feasibility needs to be ascertained before a definitive trial can be delivered in hand trauma.

METHODS

A multicentre feasibility RCT of antimicrobial sutures versus standard sutures involving adults undergoing surgery for hand trauma to evaluate feasibility for a definitive trial. Secondary objectives were incidence of SSI in both groups, hand function measured with patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life and change in employment. Randomization was performed on a 1:1 basis, stratified by age of the patient and whether the injury was open or closed, using a secure, centralized, online randomization service. Participants were blinded to allocation.

RESULTS

116 participants were recruited and randomized (60 intervention, 56 control). Of 227 screened, most were eligible (89.5 per cent), and most who were approached agreed to be included in the study (84.7 per cent). Retention was low: 57.5 per cent at 30 days, 52 per cent at 90 days and 45.1 per cent at 6 months. Incidence of SSI was >20 per cent in both groups. Hand function deteriorated after injury but recovered to near pre-injury levels during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of SSI after hand trauma is high. A definitive RCT of antimicrobial sutures in hand trauma surgery is feasible, if retention is improved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10771059.

Methods of Recruitment for Surgical and Perioperative Randomized Controlled Trials: A Rapid Review

Due to the complex nature of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reaching target recruitment can be challenging. The primary objective was to report on characteristics of successful pilot surgical and perioperative RCTs and the methodological strategies implemented to optimize recruitment. The secondary objective was to provide recommendations for successful recruitment strategies for future surgical RCTs. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Web of Science (via Ovid) databases were searched from 2012 to 2022. This review included surgical and perioperative pilot studies that met their recruitment targets. Study and recruitment characteristics were summarized, and potential relationships between study design and recruitment rate were assessed. Optimized recruitment strategies were extracted when reported. Of 4156 total articles identified, 255 underwent full-text screening, and 52 articles were included. Of the included pilot studies, 21% (n = 11) did not indicate a target sample size or recruitment rate. Recruitment methods were minimally reported in pilot studies for perioperative or surgical RCTs. Strategies to optimize recruitment included internal iterative evaluations of the recorded recruitment appointments and staged introduction of the study. Recruitment rate was not associated with invasiveness of intervention or burden of participation. Patient involvement is absent from current reports on methodological design and offers valuable opportunity to optimize recruitment. Recruitment strategies in perioperative and surgical RCTs can be optimized with iterative qualitative evaluation of the recruitment methods with input from the interdisciplinary research team.

Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention to surgical trials has previously been reported to be problematic, resulting in research waste. Surgery often results in wounds, meaning these trials are likely to have similar populations. There is currently no systematic assessment of effective strategies for these populations and hence, systematic assessment of these was deemed to be of importance.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials undertaken to test an intervention to improve recruitment or retention within a surgical or wound based host randomised controlled trial. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ORRCA Database and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form. A narrative synthesis was used due to a lack of heterogeneity between strategies which prevented meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2133 records were identified which resulted in 13 ultimately being included in the review; seven on recruitment and six on retention. All included studies were based within surgical host trials. Four of the seven recruitment studies focussed on the provision of consent information to participants, one focussed on study set up and one on staff training, with only one relating to consent information finding any significant effect. A range of retention strategies were assessed by the included studies, however only two found (pen vs no pen, mailing strategies) found any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

The included studies within a trial were all conducted within surgical trials. There was significant variation in strategies used, and limited replications and therefore further assessment may be warranted. Given the lack of studies embedded within wound care trials, further studies in this area are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020205475).

Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders

INTRODUCTION

Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes.

METHODS

We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed.

RESULTS

The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based.

CONCLUSION

Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.

The integration of rapid qualitative research in clinical trials: reflections from the ward-based goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in acute pancreatitis feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in the integration of qualitative studies in randomised controlled trials. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out a rapid qualitative study during a feasibility trial of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in patients with acute pancreatitis, including our sharing of emerging findings and the use of these findings by the trial team.

METHODS

The study was designed as a rapid feedback evaluation and combined interviews with staff and patients who took part in the trial.

FINDINGS

The rapid qualitative study pointed to common problems in trial recruitment among multiple sites, where lack of engagement of clinical teams across sites might impact negatively on patient recruitment. The article describes how the use of rapid feedback loops can be used as the trial is ongoing to inform changes in implementation. It also covers the potential challenges of working rapidly and collaborative with the trial team.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid feedback evaluations can be used to generate findings across all stages of trial design and delivery. Additional research is required to explore the implementation of this research design in other settings and trial designs.

Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters’ perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. 

Methods

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden’s approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.

Results

In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles.

Conclusions

This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06818-4.

Eligibility criteria in NIH-funded clinical trials: Can adults with intellectual disability get in?

BACKGROUND

Although scientific breakthroughs can promote health equity, there is concern that adults with intellectual disability, a health disparities population, may be excluded from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which adults with intellectual disability are subject to exclusion from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials.

METHODS

We studied recent NIH-funded Phase 2/3, 3, and 4 clinical trials of United States-based working-age adults (>18 < 55 years of age) listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. We coded eligibility criteria for inclusion, direct exclusion, and indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

RESULTS

We rarely identified studies that directly include adults with intellectual disability. Most studies (74.6%) had eligibility criteria that directly and/or indirectly exclude adults with intellectual disability. Approximately one-third of studies had direct exclusion criteria based on cognitive impairment or diagnosis of intellectual disability. Nearly 65% of studies indirectly excluded adults with intellectual disability based on factors likely associated with intellectual disability (e.g., functional capacity, inability to read/write, and/or research staff discretion).

CONCLUSIONS

We found less exclusion based on diagnosis of intellectual disability than anticipated. Nonetheless, about three-fourths of studies had eligibility criteria which would likely lead to the direct and/or indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability. Our findings suggest substantial cause for concern that adults with intellectual disability experience widespread exclusion from NIH-funded clinical trials-exclusion that may lack appropriate justification and assessment. Consequently, this group is denied equal access to the potential benefits of scientific discovery. We provide recommendations for approaches to include adults with intellectual disability.