A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs)

Patients' perspectives on planned interventions tested in the Otago MASTER feasibility trial: an implementation-based process evaluation study

BACKGROUND

Patients are key stakeholders of clinical research, and their perspectives are relevant for researchers when planning and conducting clinical trials. Numerous aspects of trial process can influence participants' experiences. Their experiences within a trial can impact retention rates. Poor treatment adherence may bias treatment effect estimates. One way to improve recruitment and adherence is to design trials that are aligned with patients' needs and preferences. This study reports a process evaluation of the Otago MASTER feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to investigate the patients' perceptions of the trial interventions through individual interviews.

METHODS

Twenty-five participants were recruited for the feasibility trial and were allocated to two groups: tailored or standardised exercise. Sixteen participants agreed to take part in individual semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and all interviews were analysed thematically using an iterative approach.

RESULTS

Our key findings suggest participants: (1) took part in the study to access healthcare services and contribute to research; (2) valued interventions received; (3) reported certain barriers and facilitators to participate in the trial; and (4) highlighted areas for improvement when designing the full trial.

CONCLUSION

Participants volunteered to access healthcare and to contribute to research. Participants valued the personalised care, perceived that their engagement within the trial improved their self-management and self-efficacy behaviour, valued the time spent with clinicians, and the empathetic environment and education received. Facilitators and barriers will require careful consideration in the future as the barriers may impact reliability and validity of future trial results.

Recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants: understanding motivations of patients with chronic pain and other populations

This paper aims to present and discuss the issues, challenges, and strategies related to recruitment and retention in clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain. The randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions. However, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the challenges associated with recruiting and retaining participants. To prioritize the experience of the study population, targeted outreach strategies and a patient-centric approach are necessary. Researchers should consider incorporating recruitment and retention strategies during the study design phase. Implementing multi-pronged recruitment methods, leveraging relationships with community providers, and involving representatives of the patient population are helpful approaches. Effective communication and maintaining a professional environment are vital for optimizing engagement and supporting the successful execution of clinical trials involving participants with chronic pain.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trial Approaches: European Health Technology Assessment Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are clinical trials in which some or all trial activities take place closer to participants' proximities instead of a traditional investigative site. Data from DCTs may be used for clinical and economic evaluations by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to support reimbursement decision making. This study aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges for DCT approaches from an HTA perspective by interviewing representatives from European HTA bodies.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 European HTA representatives between September 2022 and February 2023, and transcripts were analyzed after thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two main themes were identified from the data relating to (1) DCT approaches in HTA and (2) trial-level acceptance and relevance. Experience with assessing DCTs was limited and a variety of knowledge about DCTs was observed. The respondents recognized the opportunity of DCTs to reduce recall bias when participant-reported outcome data can be collected more frequently and conveniently from home. Concerns were expressed about the data quality when participants become responsible for data collection. Despite this challenge, the respondents recognized the potential of DCTs to increase the generalizability of results because data can be collected in a setting reflective of the everyday situation potentially from a more diverse participant group.

CONCLUSIONS

DCTs could generate relevant results for HTA decision making when data are collected in a real-world setting from a diverse participant group. Increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges could help HTA assessors in their appraisal of DCT approaches.

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol.

Objective

To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Design

Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial.

Setting

Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices.

Participants

Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.

Interventions

Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective.

Limitations

The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis.

Conclusions

The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.

Future work

The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.