Invisible barriers to clinical trials: the impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials

Novel Therapies in Cancer: Trials and Tribulations

Clinical trials are the backbone for advancing therapeutic options for patients diagnosed with cancer. Yet only 7.1% of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials in the United States. In this article, we review some of the reasons for poor accrual and discuss potential solutions. See related article by van Berge Henegouwen et al., p. 3937.

Protocol-in-a-Day Workshop: Expediting IRB Approval for Junior and Senior Faculty

Delays in research protocol development may be a single factor that hinders the career progression of academic faculty. Structured educational guidance during this phase proves crucial in mitigating setbacks in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and expediting trial implementation. To address this, the Protocol-in-a-Day (PIAD) workshop, a comprehensive 1-day event involving members from six critical facets of RO clinical trial implementation, was established, offering significant input to individual protocols. Efficacy and satisfaction of the PIAD workshop were assessed through a 5-question survey and the average time from submission to IRB initial approval. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Nonparametric data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. A total of 18 protocols that went through the PIAD workshop were activated. The mean time to IRB approval for protocols that went through PIAD was 39.8 days compared to 58.4 days for those that did not go through the PIAD workshop. Based on survey results, 100% of PIAD participants said the PIAD workshop was useful and 94% of participants stated that the PIAD workshop improved the overall quality of their protocol. Participant surveys further highlighted substantial improvements in trial quality, language, and statistical design and revealed that all participants found the workshop helpful. Therefore, both junior and senior faculty benefitted from this educational program during protocol development, as both groups demonstrated shorter times to IRB approval than non-participants. This acceleration not only fosters efficient trial implementation but also supports academic faculty in their career development.

Effectiveness of IT-supported patient recruitment: study protocol for an interrupted time series study at ten German university hospitals

BACKGROUND

As part of the German Medical Informatics Initiative, the MIRACUM project establishes data integration centers across ten German university hospitals. The embedded MIRACUM Use Case "Alerting in Care - IT Support for Patient Recruitment", aims to support the recruitment into clinical trials by automatically querying the repositories for patients satisfying eligibility criteria and presenting them as screening candidates. The objective of this study is to investigate whether the developed recruitment tool has a positive effect on study recruitment within a multi-center environment by increasing the number of participants. Its secondary objective is the measurement of organizational burden and user satisfaction of the provided IT solution.

METHODS

The study uses an Interrupted Time Series Design with a duration of 15 months. All trials start in the control phase of randomized length with regular recruitment and change to the intervention phase with additional IT support. The intervention consists of the application of a recruitment-support system which uses patient data collected in general care for screening according to specific criteria. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of all selected trials are translated into a machine-readable format using the OHDSI ATLAS tool. All patient data from the data integration centers is regularly checked against these criteria. The primary outcome is the number of participants recruited per trial and week standardized by the targeted number of participants per week and the expected recruitment duration of the specific trial. Secondary outcomes are usability, usefulness, and efficacy of the recruitment support. Sample size calculation based on simple parallel group assumption can demonstrate an effect size of d=0.57 on a significance level of 5% and a power of 80% with a total number of 100 trials (10 per site). Data describing the included trials and the recruitment process is collected at each site. The primary analysis will be conducted using linear mixed models with the actual recruitment number per week and trial standardized by the expected recruitment number per week and trial as the dependent variable.

DISCUSSION

The application of an IT-supported recruitment solution developed in the MIRACUM consortium leads to an increased number of recruited participants in studies at German university hospitals. It supports employees engaged in the recruitment of trial participants and is easy to integrate in their daily work.

Quantitative assessment of the impact of standard agreement templates on multisite clinical trial start up time

Contracting delays remain a challenge to the successful initiation of multisite clinical research in the US. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Contracts Processing Study showed average contract negotiation duration of > 100 days for industry-sponsored or investigator-initiated contracts. Such delays create enormous costs to sponsors and to patients waiting to use new evidence-based treatments. With support from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Accelerated Clinical Trial Agreement (ACTA) was developed by 25 major academic institutions and medical centers engaged in clinical research in collaboration with the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership and with input from pharmaceutical companies. The ACTA also informed the development of subsequent agreements, including the Federal Demonstration Partnership Clinical Trial Subaward Agreement (FDP-CTSA); both ACTA and the FDP-CTSA are largely non-negotiable agreements that represent pre-negotiated compromises in contract terms agreed upon by industry and/or medical center stakeholders. When the involved parties agree to use the CTSA-developed and supported standard agreement templates as a starting point for negotiations, there can be significant time savings for trials. Use of the ACTA resulted in an average savings of 48 days and use of the FDP-CTSA saved an average of 57 days of negotiation duration.

Preparing clinicians to be site investigators in multicenter clinical trials: A training program at an academic medical center

Clinical trials are essential in the translation of biomedical discoveries to new clinical interventions and therapeutics. Successful multisite clinical trials require qualified site investigators with an understanding of the full spectrum of processes and requirements from trial identification through closeout. New site investigators may be deterred by competing demands on their time, the complexity of administrative and regulatory processes for trial initiation and conduct, and limited access to experienced mentor networks. We established a Clinical Trialist Training Program (CTTP) and complimentary Clinical Trials Bootcamp at our institution to address these barriers and increase the number of local site investigators enabled to lead successful clinical trials. An initial cohort of four CTTP scholars received salary support with protected time, didactic training, assistance with study identification and start-up navigation, and quarterly progress meetings. By the end of the 12-month program, this initial cohort identified 33 new trials, utilized feasibility assessments, and reported being on target to sustain their protected time from new clinical trials. Bootcamp attendees demonstrated increased knowledge of resources, offices, and processes associated with clinical trial conduct. Our results support providing compensated protected time, training, and access to experienced clinical research professionals to enable clinicians to become successful site investigators.

Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology

Background

The study startup process for interventional clinical trials is a complex process that involves the efforts of many different teams. Each team is responsible for their startup checklist in which they verify that the necessary tasks are done before a study can move on to the next team. This regulatory process provides quality assurance and is vital for ensuring patient safety [10]. However, without having this startup process centralized and optimized, study approval can take longer than necessary as time is lost when it passes through many different hands.

Objective

This manuscript highlights the process and the systems that were developed at The University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center regarding the study startup process. To facilitate this process the regulatory management, site development, cancer center administration, and the Biostatistics & Informatics Shared Resources (BISR) teams came together to build a platform aimed at streamlining the startup process and providing a transparent view of where a study is in the startup process.

Process

Ensuring the guidelines are clearly articulated for the review criteria of each of the three review boards, i.e., Disease Working Group (DWG), Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC), and Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) along with a system that can track every step and its history throughout the review process.

Results

Well-defined processes and tracking methodologies have allowed the operations teams to track each study closely and ensure the 90-day and 120-day deadlines are met, this allows the operational team to dynamically prioritize their work daily. It also provides Principal investigators a transparent view of where their study stands within the study startup process and allows them to prepare for the next steps accordingly.

Conclusion/future work

The current process and technology deployment has been a significant improvement to expedite the review process and minimize study startup delays. There are still a few opportunities to fine-tune the study startup process; an example of which includes automatically informing the operational managers or the study teams to act upon deadlines regarding study review rather than the current manual communication process which involves them looking it up in the system which can add delays.

Traumatic injury clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children (TIC-TOC): A pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid (TXA) improves survival in adults with traumatic hemorrhage; however, the drug has not been evaluated in a trial in injured children. We assessed the feasibility of a large-scale trial evaluating the effects of TXA in children with severe hemorrhagic injuries.

METHODS

Severely injured children (0 up to 18th birthday) were randomized into a double-blind randomized trial of (1) TXA 15 mg/kg bolus dose, followed by 2 mg/kg/h infusion over 8 h, (2) TXA 30 mg/kg bolus dose, followed by 4 mg/kg/h infusion over 8 h, or (3) normal saline placebo bolus and infusion. The trial was conducted at four pediatric Level I trauma centers in the United States between June 2018 and March 2020. We enrolled patients under federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) procedures when parents were unable to provide informed consent. Feasibility outcomes included the rate of enrollment, adherence to intervention arms, and ability to measure the primary clinical outcome. Clinical outcomes included global functioning (primary), working memory, total amount of blood products transfused, intracranial hemorrhage progression, and adverse events. The target enrollment rate was at least 1.25 patients per site per month.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were randomized with a mean age of 10.7 years (standard deviation [SD] 5.0 years) and 22 (71%) patients were male. The mean time from injury to randomization was 2.4 h (SD 0.6 h). Sixteen (52%) patients had isolated brain injuries and 15 (48%) patients had isolated torso injuries. The enrollment rate using EFIC was 1.34 patients per site per month. All eligible enrolled patients received study intervention (nine patients TXA 15 mg/kg bolus dose, 10 patients TXA 30 mg/kg bolus dose, and 12 patients placebo) and had the primary outcome measured. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical outcomes were identified.

CONCLUSION

Based on enrollment rate, protocol adherence, and measurement of the primary outcome in this pilot trial, we confirmed the feasibility of conducting a large-scale, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of TXA in severely injured children with hemorrhagic brain and/or torso injuries using EFIC.

Rationale and design of Children's Oncology Group (COG) study ACCL20N1CD: financial distress during treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the United States

BACKGROUND

The study purpose is to describe trajectories of financial distress for parents of children (ages 1-14.9 years) with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The secondary aim is to identify multilevel factors (child, parent, household, treating institution) that influence change in financial distress over time.

METHODS

The study uses a prospective cohort design, repeated measurements, and mixed methods. The settings are Children's Oncology Group (COG) institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Eligible participants are English- and/or Spanish-speaking parents or legal guardians (hereafter "parents") of index children. Parents are asked to complete a survey during their child's induction (T1) and maintenance therapy (T2), and near treatment completion (T3). Study surveys include items about (a) the child's cancer and clinical course, (b) parental socio-economic status, financial distress and financial coping behaviors, and (c) household material hardships. At least 15 parents will be invited to participate in an optional semi-structured interview. NCORP institutions that enroll at least one parent must complete an annual survey about institution resources that could influence parental financial distress.

DISCUSSION

The results will inform future interventions to mitigate financial distress for parents of children diagnosed with ALL and could be instructive beyond this disease group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was initially registered with the NCI Clinical Trial Reporting Program ID: NCI-2021-03,567 on June 16, 2021. The study can be found on clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT04928599 .

Strategy management in collaborative clinical research partnerships

Purpose

Today's clinical trial partnerships frequently join multi-disciplinary investigators and stakeholders, from different countries and cultures, to conduct research with a broad array of goals. This diversity, while a strength, can also foster divergent views about priorities and what constitutes success, thereby posing challenges for management, operations, and evaluation. As a sponsor and partner in such collaborations, we seek to assist and support their development and implementation of sound research strategies, to optimize their efficiency, sustainability, and public health impact. This report describes our efforts using an adaptation of the well-established Kaplan-Norton strategy management paradigm, in our clinical trials setting. We share findings from our first test of the utility and acceptance of this approach for evaluating and managing research strategies in a collaborative clinical research partnership.

Results

Findings from pilot studies and our first implementation in an ongoing clinical research partnership in Liberia, provide initial support for our hypothesis that an adapted version of the Kaplan-Norton strategy management model can have use in this setting. With leadership from within the partnership, analysis artifacts were gathered, and assessments made using standardized tools. Practical feasibility, resonance of the findings with partners, and convergence with other empirical assessments lend initial support for the view that this approach holds promise for obtaining meaningful, useable results for assessing and improving clinical research management.

Conclusions and Implications

Engaged leadership, thoughtful timing to align with partnership planning cycles, support for the process, and an eye towards the collaboration's long-term goals appear important for developing model understanding and practice. Skepticism about evaluations, and unease at exposing weaknesses, may hinder the effort. Acceptance of findings and associated opportunities for improvement by group leadership, support a growing sense of validity. Next steps aim to test the approach in other partnerships, streamline the methodology for greater ease of use, and seek possible correlations of strategy management assessments with performance evaluation. There is hardly a better example than the COVID-19 pandemic, to spotlight the need for efficient and effective clinical research partnerships to address global health challenges. While heartened by the collaborative spirit driving the effort so far, we cannot let our enthusiasm lull us into thinking that nobility of purpose or an abundance of good will is sufficient. Careful monitoring and adjustment of clinical research strategy in response to changes (e.g., demographics, pathogen evolution, research acceptance, political and cultural environments) are vital to making the needed adjustments that can guide these programs toward successful outcomes. We hope that our work can raise awareness about the importance, relevance, and feasibility of sound strategy management in clinical research partnerships, especially during this time when there is so much at stake.

Non-cancer clinical trials start-up metrics at an academic medical center: Implications for advancing research

The primary goal for any clinical trial after it receives a funding notification is to receive regulatory approval and initiate the trial for recruitment. Every trial must go through documentation and regulatory process before it can start recruiting participants and collecting data; this initial process of review and approval is known as the study start-up process (SSU). We evaluated the average time taken for studies to receive approvals. Using data from clinical trials conducted at the University of Kansas Medical Center, various times to reach the start of the study were calculated based on the dates of individual study. The results of this analysis showed that chart review studies and investigator-initiated trials had a shorter time to activation than other types of studies. Additionally, single-center studies had a shorter activation time than multi-center studies. The analysis also demonstrated that the overall processing time consistently had been reduced over time.

•

The 2018 year’s trend shows reduced time to study start.

•

SSU process for non-cancer trial on an average requires four to six months.

•

The activation time of the SSU process varied for different study types and scopes.

Reimbursement Matters: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual

BACKGROUND

Accrual to cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. Few data exist regarding whether financial reimbursement might increase accruals.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess perceptions about reimbursement to overcome barriers to trial accrual.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional survey.

SUBJECTS

Oncologists identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.

MEASURES

We report descriptive statistics, associations of physician characteristics with perceptions of reimbursement, domains, and subthemes of free-text comments.

RESULTS

Respondents (n=1030) were mostly medical oncologists (59.4%), ages 35-54 (67%), and male (75%). Overall, 30% reported discussing trials with >25% of patients. Barriers perceived were administrative/regulatory, physician/staff time, and eligibility criteria. National Cancer Institute cooperative group participants and practice owners were more likely to endorse higher reimbursement. Respondents indicated targeted reimbursement would help improve infrastructure, but also noted potential ethical problems with reimbursement for discussion (40.7%) and accrual (85.9%). Free-text comments addressed reimbursement sources, recipients, and concerns about the real and apparent conflict of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Though concerns about a potential conflict of interest remain paramount and must be addressed in any new system of reimbursement, oncologists believe reimbursement to enhance infrastructure could help overcome barriers to trial accrual.

Publication Bias in Gastrointestinal Oncology Trials Performed over the Past Decade

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice, but their development and implementation is resource intensive. We aimed to describe modern RCTs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and identify predictors of successful accrual and publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase III GI cancer RCTs opened between 2010 and 2019 and divided into two cohorts: past and recruiting. Past trials were analyzed for predictors of successful accrual and the subset with ≥3 years follow-up were analyzed for predictors of publication. Univariate and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to identify covariates associated with complete accrual and publication status.

RESULTS

A total of 533 GI RCTs were opened from 2010 to 2019, 244 of which are still recruiting. In the "past" trials cohort (235/533) MVA, Asian continent of enrollment was a predictor for successful accrual, whereas trials with prolonged enrollment (duration longer than median of 960 days) trended to failed accrual. Predictors for publication on MVA included international enrollment and accrual completion. Sponsorship was not associated with accrual or publication. Notably, 33% of past trials remain unpublished, and 60% of trials that were closed early remain unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Accrual rate and the primary continent of enrollment drive both trial completion and publication in GI oncology. Accrual must be streamlined to enhance the impact of RCTs on clinical management. A large portion of trials remain unpublished, underscoring the need to encourage dissemination of all trials to, at a minimum, inform future trial design.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Two-thirds of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology phase III randomized controlled trials successfully accrue; however, one third of these trials are unpublished and more than half of trials that close early are unpublished. The strongest predictors for publication are successful accrual and international collaborations. Initiatives to optimize the trial enrollment process need to be explored to maximize the potential for trials to engender progress in clinical practice. Moreover, this study identified a significant publication bias in the realm of GI oncology, and the field should promote reporting of all trials in order to better inform future trial questions and design.

Clinical trial participation assessed by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status

INTRODUCTION

Individual demographic data and socioeconomic status (SES) factors from Census block group data may help define groups with disadvantaged access to clinical trials.

METHODS

Individual demographic data from the Aurora Cancer Registry and SES factors corresponding to the Census block group of the patient's address were studied for a six-year period ending July 31, 2019.

RESULTS

The final study cohort included 39,968 patients (enrolled = 772, and not enrolled = 39,196). In univariate analysis, significantly fewer patients older than age 65 (p < 0.001) and fewer men (p < 0.001) were enrolled in clinical trials. Socioeconomic factors found to be significant during univariate analysis included: low household income (p < 0.001), percentage below the poverty line (p < 0.001), low percentage home ownership (p = 0.006), unemployment (p = 0.003), absence of a college degree (p = 0.037) and absence of a high school degree (p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, patients older than age 65 were less likely to participate in a trial (odds ratio 0.574, p < 0.001) and men were less likely to participate (odds ratio = 0.703, p < 0.001). Only 1.4% of the variance in clinical trial participation was accounted for demographic and SES factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The only groups with disadvantaged access to clinical trials in our institution were the elderly and men. Whether demographic or SES factors are related to accrual rates of clinical trials in other geographic regions or in other types of research studies warrants further investigation.

An investigation into the factors affecting investigator-initiated trial start-up in Ireland

Background

In common with many countries, Ireland has seen an increasing trend in the number of clinical trials conducted over the past few years. Yet, as elsewhere, trialists in Ireland face several problems and barriers in the starting-up of clinical trials. These barriers impede trial activity significantly, with consequent impacts on patient care. It is critical to understand these issues, to develop approaches to facilitate trial start up. This study identifies the challenges in conducting clinical trials in Ireland and specifically the contractual, ethical, logistical, and regulatory barriers that hinder the start-up of investigator-led trials in Ireland.

Methods

Data for this study were collected in two stages. In the first stage, a survey was conducted among trialists in Ireland. A total of 44 trialists responded to the survey, and information was collected about their experience in conducting clinical trials, the scale and nature of their most recently completed trial, and the details of specific barriers they encountered during the starting-up of the trial. In the second stage, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with the awardees of 2018 Irish Health Research Board’s Definitive Intervention Feasibility Award. These interviews facilitated a deeper exploration of issues and problems in conducting clinical trials in Ireland.

Results

This study identified several issues and bottlenecks in starting-up clinical trials in Ireland with contracts and ethical approval cited as the major issues. The data shows that site identification and activation was also problematic in some cases. Several respondents reported difficulties in accessing dedicated time for protocol development and believe that support in this area can be greatly beneficial. It was reported that availability of skilled staff members like statisticians and data managers was as an issue, especially for small trials.

Conclusion

This study found that several factors impact trial initiation and progression in Ireland. Delays associated with obtaining contract and ethics approval are perceived as major barriers. Specialist supports in areas such as ethics and regulatory affairs and availability of specialised staff members in areas such as statistics and data management are key actions to enable enhanced clinical trial activity in Ireland.

21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 11-Compliant Digital Signature Solution for Cancer Clinical Trials: A Single-Institution Feasibility Study

PURPOSE

Inefficiencies in the clinical trial infrastructure result in protracted trial completion timelines, physician-investigator turnover, and a shrinking skilled labor force and present obstacles to research participation. Taken together, these barriers hinder scientific progress. Technological solutions to improve clinical trial efficiency have emerged, yet adoption remains slow because of concerns with cost, regulatory compliance, and implementation.

METHODS

A prospective pilot study that compared regulatory-compliant digital and traditional wet ink paper signatures was conducted over a 6.5-month period in a hospital-based health system. Staff time and effort, error rate, costs, and time to completion were measured. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare staff time and time to completion. A value analysis was conducted. A survey was administered to measure user satisfaction.

RESULTS

There where 96 participants (47 digital, 49 paper), 132 studies included (31 digital, 101 paper), and 265 documents processed (156 digital, 109 paper). A moderate reduction in staff time required to prepare documents for signature was observed (P < .0001). Error rates were reported in 5.1% of digital and 2.8% of paper documents, but this difference was not significant. Discrepancies requiring revisions included incomplete mandatory fields, inaccurate information submitted, and technical issues. A value analysis demonstrated a 19% labor savings with the use of digital signatures. Survey response rate was 57.4% (n = 27). Most participants (85.2%) preferred digital signatures. The time to complete documents was faster with digital signatures compared with paper (P = .0241).

CONCLUSION

The use of digital signatures resulted in a decrease in document completion time and regulatory burden as represented by staff hours. Additional cost and time savings and information liquidity could be realized by integrating digital signatures and electronic document management systems.

Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

Global, randomized clinical trials are extremely complex. Trial start-up is a critical phase and has many opportunities for delay which adversely impact the study timelines and budget. Understanding factors that contribute to delay may help clinical trial managers and other stakeholders to work more efficiently, hastening patient access to potential new therapies.

Methods

We reviewed the available literature related to start-up of global, Phase III clinical trials and then created a fishbone diagram detailing drivers contributing to start-up delays. The issues identified were used to craft a checklist to assist clinical trial managers in more efficient trial start-up.

Results

We identified key drivers for start-up delays in the following categories: regulatory, contracts and budgets, insurance, clinical supplies, site identification and selection, site activation, and inefficient processes/pitfalls.

Conclusion

Initiating global randomized clinical trials is a complex endeavor, and reasons for delay are well documented in the literature. By using a checklist, clinical trial managers may mitigate some delays and get clinical studies initiated as soon as possible.

Trial Sponsorship and Time to Reporting for Phase 3 Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials

The pace of clinical trial data generation and publication is an area of interest within clinical oncology; however, little is known about the dynamics and covariates of time to reporting (TTR) of trial results. To assess these, ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase three clinical trials for patients with metastatic solid tumors, and the factors associated with TTR from enrollment completion to publication were analyzed. Based on the 319 included trials, cooperative-group-sponsored trials were reported at a slower rate than non-cooperative-group trials (median 37.5 vs. 31.0 months; p < 0.001), while industry-funded studies were reported at a faster rate than non-industry-supported trials (31.0 vs. 40.0 months; p = 0.005). Furthermore, successful trials (those meeting their primary endpoint) were reported at a faster rate than unsuccessful studies (27.5 vs. 36.0 months; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that industry funding was independently associated with a shorter TTR (p = 0.006), while cooperative group sponsorship was not associated with a statistically significant difference in TTR (p = 0.18). These data underscore an opportunity to improve cooperative group trial efficiency by reducing TTR.

Improving the Time to Activation of New Clinical Trials at a National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE:

The time it takes a performing site to activate a clinical trial can directly affect the ability to provide innovative and state-of-the-art care to patients. We sought to understand the process of activating an oncology clinical trial at a matrix National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS:

A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders within the cancer center, university, and affiliate hospitals held a retreat to map out the process of activating a clinical trial. We applied classical quality improvement and Six Sigma methodology to determine bottlenecks and non–value-added time in activating a clinical trial. During this process, attention was paid to time to pass through each step, and perceived barriers and bottlenecks were identified through group discussions.

RESULTS:

The process map identified 66 steps with 12 decision points to activate a new clinical trial. The following two steps were instituted first: allow parallel scientific committee and institutional review board (IRB) review and allow the clinical research coordination committee, a group that determines university interest and feasibility, to review protocols independent of the IRB and scientific committee approval. The clinical research coordination committee continues to track the activation time, and this framework is used to identify additional improvement steps.

CONCLUSION:

By applying quality improvement methodologies and Six Sigma principles, we were able to identify redundancies in the process to activate a clinical trial. This allowed us to redesign the process of activating a clinical trial at a matrix comprehensive cancer center. More importantly, the process map provides a framework to maintain these gains and implement additional changes and serves as an example to deploy across the campus and at other similar institutions.

A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board

The process of creating a new Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committee (REC) presents many challenges; however, little has been published to describe this experience. Thus, many questions about creating a new IRB/REC and the challenges they face remain. The establishment of a new federal-wide single IRB provided a rare opportunity to describe these experience and outcomes. A census of the activity and outcomes of this new board is reported for its first 3 years of operation: The convened board approved 50 protocols, required an average of 93.24 days and 2.76 reviews for protocol approval, and issued an average of 31.82 stipulations per protocol. The census data helped to identify several issues that impacted the board's outcomes and it serves as a baseline for future comparisons. The overall dynamics, challenges, and outcomes of this new single IRB are discussed.

A physician-scientist preceptorship in clinical and translational research enhances training and mentorship

BACKGROUND

Dual degree program MD/PhD candidates typically train extensively in basic science research and in clinical medicine, but often receive little formal experience or mentorship in clinical and translational research.

METHODS

To address this educational and curricular gap, the University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program partnered with the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research to create a new physician-scientist preceptorship in clinical and translational research. This six-week apprentice-style learning experience-guided by a physician-scientist faculty mentor-integrates both clinical work and a translational research project, providing early exposure and hands-on experience with clinically oriented research and the integrated career of a physician-scientist. Five years following implementation, we retrospectively surveyed students and faculty members to determine the outcomes of this preceptorship.

RESULTS

Over five years, 38 students and 36 faculty members participated in the physician-scientist preceptorship. Based on student self-assessments (n = 29, response rate 76%), the course enhanced competency in conducting translational research and understanding regulation of clinical research among other skills. Mentor assessments (n = 17, response rate 47%) supported the value of the preceptorship in these same areas. Based on work during the preceptorship, half of the students produced a peer-reviewed publication or a meeting abstract. At least eleven peer-reviewed manuscripts were generated. The preceptorship also provided a structure for physician-scientist mentorship in the students' clinical specialty of choice.

CONCLUSION

The physician-scientist preceptorship provides a new curricular model to address the gap of clinical research training and provides for mentorship of physician-scientists during medical school. Future work will assess the long-term impact of this course on physician-scientist career trajectories.

Conducting clinical trials-costs, impacts, and the value of clinical trials networks: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

A significant barrier to conducting clinical trials is their high cost, which is driven primarily by the time and resources required to activate trials and reach accrual targets. The high cost of running trials has a substantial impact on their long-term feasibility and the type of clinical research undertaken.

METHODS

A scoping review of the empirical literature on the costs associated with conducting clinical trials was undertaken for the years 2001-2015. Five reference databases were consulted to elicit how trials costs are presented in the literature. A review instrument was developed to extract the content of in-scope papers. Findings were characterized by date and place of publication, clinical disease area, and network/cooperative group designation, when specified. Costs were captured and grouped by patient accrual and management, infrastructure, and the opportunity costs associated with industry funding for trials research. Cost impacts on translational research and health systems were also captured, as were recommendations to reduce trial expenditures. Since articles often cited multiple costs, multiple cost coding was used during data extraction to capture the range and frequency of costs.

RESULTS

A total of 288 empirical articles were included. The distribution of reported costs was: patient management and accrual costs (132 articles), infrastructure costs (118 articles) and the opportunity costs of industry sponsorship (72 articles). 221 articles reported on the impact of undertaking costly trials on translational research and health systems; of these, the most frequently reported consequences were to research integrity (52% of articles), research capacity (36% of articles) and running low-value trials (34% of articles). 254 articles provided recommendations to reduce trial costs; of these, the most frequently reported recommendations related to improvements in: operational efficiencies (33% of articles); patient accrual (24% of articles); funding for trials and transparency in trials reporting (18% of articles, each).

CONCLUSION

Key findings from the review are: 1) delayed trial activation has costs to budgets and research; 2) poor accrual leads to low-value trials and wasted resources; 3) the pharmaceutical industry can be a pragmatic, if problematic, partner in clinical research; 4) organizational know-how and successful research collaboration are benefits of network/cooperative groups; and 5) there are spillover benefits of clinical trials to healthcare systems, including better health outcomes, enhanced research capacity, and drug cost avoidance. There is a need for more economic evaluations of the benefits of clinical research, such as health system use (or avoidance) and health outcomes in cities and health authorities with institutions that conduct clinical research, to demonstrate the affordability of clinical trials, despite their high cost.

Global Breast Cancer Research: Moving Forward

Breast cancer is a major global health problem and major cause of mortality. Although mortality trends are declining in high-income countries, trends are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Addressing global breast cancer research is a challenging endeavor, as notable disparities and extremely heterogeneous realities exist in different regions across the world. Basic global cancer health care needs have been addressed by the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed list of essential medicines and by resource-stratified guidelines for screening and treatment. However, specific strategies are needed to address disparities in access to health care, particularly access to new therapies. Discussions about global research in breast cancer should take into account the ongoing globalization of clinical trials. Collaboration fostered by well-established research organizations in North America and Europe is essential for the development of infrastructure and human resources in LMICs so that researchers in these countries can begin to address regional questions. Specific challenges that impact the future of global breast cancer research include increasing the availability of trials in LMICs, developing strategies to increase patient participation in clinical trials, and creation of clear guidelines for the development of real-world evidence-based research. The main objective of this review is to encourage the discussion of challenges in global breast cancer research with the hope that collectively we will be able to generate workable proposals to advance the field.

Traumatic injury clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children (TIC-TOC): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Trauma is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children in the United States. The antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid (TXA) improves survival in adults with traumatic hemorrhage, however, the drug has not been evaluated in a clinical trial in severely injured children. We designed the Traumatic Injury Clinical Trial Evaluating Tranexamic Acid in Children (TIC-TOC) trial to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a confirmatory clinical trial that evaluates the effects of TXA in children with severe trauma and hemorrhagic injuries.

Methods

Children with severe trauma and evidence of hemorrhagic torso or brain injuries will be randomized to one of three arms: (1) TXA dose A (15 mg/kg bolus dose over 20 min, followed by 2 mg/kg/hr infusion over 8 h), (2) TXA dose B (30 mg/kg bolus dose over 20 min, followed by 4 mg/kg/hr infusion over 8 h), or (3) placebo. We will use permuted-block randomization by injury type: hemorrhagic brain injury, hemorrhagic torso injury, and combined hemorrhagic brain and torso injury. The trial will be conducted at four pediatric Level I trauma centers. We will collect the following outcome measures: global functioning as measured by the Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) and Pediatric Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E Peds), working memory (digit span test), total amount of blood products transfused in the initial 48 h, intracranial hemorrhage progression at 24 h, coagulation biomarkers, and adverse events (specifically thromboembolic events and seizures).

Discussion

This multicenter trial will provide important preliminary data and assess the feasibility of conducting a confirmatory clinical trial that evaluates the benefits of TXA in children with severe trauma and hemorrhagic injuries to the torso and/or brain.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02840097. Registered on 14 July 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2974-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Using Rapid Cycle Improvement (Plan, Do, Study, Act) to Design a Scalable Appointment Scheduling System for Complex Oncology Clinical Trials at an Academic Cancer Center

PURPOSE

This study's purpose was to optimize the efficiency of and to design a scalable research scheduling team to meet the growing demands of an academic cancer center with increasing clinical trial accruals.

METHODS

The Plan, Do, Study, Act improvement methodology was deployed to increase the efficiency of research scheduling, to reduce non-value-added (NVA) activities, and to reduce cycle time to meet takt time. In the Plan phase, voice-of-the-customer interviews were conducted. In the Do phase, the baseline workflow was mapped and billing data were analyzed. In the Study phase, cycle time, takt time, and capacity analysis metrics were calculated at baseline. In the Act phase, interventions were implemented to increase efficiency by reducing NVA activities and increasing value-added activities, and metrics were reassessed after intervention.

RESULTS

An 8% increase in appointment requests was noted from baseline to after intervention, and the cycle time for appointment scheduling decreased by 11%, demonstrating increased efficiency. Process steps decreased from 15 to 10, eliminating NVA activities and rework and waiting, two types of waste.

CONCLUSION

Although efficiency increased, the number of total appointments scheduled weekly increased by 4%, resulting in a reduced takt time, or a shorter time to schedule each appointment to meet demand. A capacity analysis demonstrated that even after interventions, an additional 0.5 full-time employee is required to reduce cycle time to equal takt time. Capacity analysis creates a scalable framework for the scheduling team and facilitates movement from reactive to proactive staffing, which can be applied throughout the research enterprise.

MIRACUM: Medical Informatics in Research and Care in University Medicine

INTRODUCTION

This article is part of the Focus Theme of Methods of Information in Medicine on the German Medical Informatics Initiative. Similar to other large international data sharing networks (e.g. OHDSI, PCORnet, eMerge, RD-Connect) MIRACUM is a consortium of academic and hospital partners as well as one industrial partner in eight German cities which have joined forces to create interoperable data integration centres (DIC) and make data within those DIC available for innovative new IT solutions in patient care and medical research.

OBJECTIVES

Sharing data shall be supported by common interoperable tools and services, in order to leverage the power of such data for biomedical discovery and moving towards a learning health system. This paper aims at illustrating the major building blocks and concepts which MIRACUM will apply to achieve this goal.

GOVERNANCE AND POLICIES

Besides establishing an efficient governance structure within the MIRACUM consortium (based on the steering board, a central administrative office, the general MIRACUM assembly, six working groups and the international scientific advisory board), defining DIC governance rules and data sharing policies, as well as establishing (at each MIRACUM DIC site, but also for MIRACUM in total) use and access committees are major building blocks for the success of such an endeavor.

ARCHITECTURAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

The MIRACUM DIC architecture builds on a comprehensive ecosystem of reusable open source tools (MIRACOLIX), which are linkable and interoperable amongst each other, but also with the existing software environment of the MIRACUM hospitals. Efficient data protection measures, considering patient consent, data harmonization and a MIRACUM metadata repository as well as a common data model are major pillars of this framework. The methodological approach for shared data usage relies on a federated querying and analysis concept.

USE CASES

MIRACUM aims at proving the value of their DIC with three use cases: IT support for patient recruitment into clinical trials, the development and routine care implementation of a clinico-molecular predictive knowledge tool, and molecular-guided therapy recommendations in molecular tumor boards.

RESULTS

Based on the MIRACUM DIC release in the nine months conceptual phase first large scale analysis for stroke and colorectal cancer cohorts have been pursued.

DISCUSSION

Beyond all technological challenges successfully applying the MIRACUM tools for the enrichment of our knowledge about diagnostic and therapeutic concepts, thus supporting the concept of a Learning Health System will be crucial for the acceptance and sustainability in the medical community and the MIRACUM university hospitals.

Utilization of a Clinical Trial Management System for the Whole Clinical Trial Process as an Integrated Database: System Development

Background

Clinical trials pose potential risks in both communications and management due to the various stakeholders involved when performing clinical trials. The academic medical center has a responsibility and obligation to conduct and manage clinical trials while maintaining a sufficiently high level of quality, therefore it is necessary to build an information technology system to support standardized clinical trial processes and comply with relevant regulations.

Objective

The objective of the study was to address the challenges identified while performing clinical trials at an academic medical center, Asan Medical Center (AMC) in Korea, by developing and utilizing a clinical trial management system (CTMS) that complies with standardized processes from multiple departments or units, controlled vocabularies, security, and privacy regulations.

Methods

This study describes the methods, considerations, and recommendations for the development and utilization of the CTMS as a consolidated research database in an academic medical center. A task force was formed to define and standardize the clinical trial performance process at the site level. On the basis of the agreed standardized process, the CTMS was designed and developed as an all-in-one system complying with privacy and security regulations.

Results

In this study, the processes and standard mapped vocabularies of a clinical trial were established at the academic medical center. On the basis of these processes and vocabularies, a CTMS was built which interfaces with the existing trial systems such as the electronic institutional review board health information system, enterprise resource planning, and the barcode system. To protect patient data, the CTMS implements data governance and access rules, and excludes 21 personal health identifiers according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule and Korean privacy laws. Since December 2014, the CTMS has been successfully implemented and used by 881 internal and external users for managing 11,645 studies and 146,943 subjects.

Conclusions

The CTMS was introduced in the Asan Medical Center to manage the large amounts of data involved with clinical trial operations. Inter- and intraunit control of data and resources can be easily conducted through the CTMS system. To our knowledge, this is the first CTMS developed in-house at an academic medical center side which can enhance the efficiency of clinical trial management in compliance with privacy and security laws.

Systems approach to assessing and improving local human research Institutional Review Board performance

OBJECTIVE

To quantifying the interdependency within the regulatory environment governing human subject research, including Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), federally mandated Medicare coverage analysis and contract negotiations.

METHODS

Over 8000 IRB, coverage analysis and contract applications initiated between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed using traditional and machine learning analytics for a quality improvement effort to improve the time required to authorize the start of human research studies.

RESULTS

Staffing ratios, study characteristics such as the number of arms, source of funding and number and type of ancillary reviews significantly influenced the timelines. Using key variables, a predictive algorithm identified outliers for a workflow distinct from the standard process. Improved communication between regulatory units, integration of common functions, and education outreach improved the regulatory approval process.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding and improving the interdependencies between IRB, coverage analysis and contract negotiation offices requires a systems approach and might benefit from predictive analytics.

Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute's Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.

Transforming the Activation of Clinical Trials

The Institute of Medicine and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognize that activating clinical trials in the United States is lengthy and inefficient. Downstream consequences include increased expense, suboptimal accrual, move of clinical trials overseas, and delayed availability of treatments for patients. An in-tandem processing initiative is here highlighted that transformed the activation of clinical trials (TACT), reduced the activation time by 70%, and offers a paradigm for enhanced translational readiness.

Institutional Scientific Review of Cancer Clinical Research Protocols: A Unique Requirement That Affects Activation Timelines

PURPOSE

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) requirement that clinical trials at NCI-designated cancer centers undergo institutional scientific review in addition to institutional review board evaluation is unique among medical specialties. We sought to evaluate the effect of this process on protocol activation timelines.

METHODS

We analyzed oncology clinical trials that underwent full board review by the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. We analyzed associations between trial characteristics, PRMC decisions, protocol modifications, and process timelines using the χ2 test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 226 trials were analyzed. Of these, 77% were industry sponsored and 23% were investigator initiated. The median time from submission to PRMC approval was 55 days. The length of review was associated with trial phase, timing of approval, and number of committee changes/clarifications requested. The median process time was 35 days for those approved at first decision, 68 days for second decision, and 116 days for third decision ( P < .001). The median process time was 39 days if no changes/clarifications were requested, 64 days for one to three changes/clarifications, and 73 days for four or more changes/clarifications ( P < .001). Requested changes/clarifications had a greater effect on industry-sponsored trials than on investigator-initiated trials.

CONCLUSION

NCI-mandated institutional scientific review of oncology clinical trials contributes substantially to protocol activation timelines. Further evaluation of this process and the value added to research quality is warranted.

Effect of Contract Research Organization Bureaucracy in Clinical Trial Management: A Model From Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Contract research organization (CRO) support is largely included in clinical trial management, although its effect in terms of time savings and benefit has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of lung cancer trials to explore differences in term of trial activation timelines and accrual for studies with and without CRO involvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Results regarding study timelines from feasibility data to first patient enrollment were collected from 7 Italian thoracic oncology departments. The final accruals (screened/enrolled patients) are reported. We considered CRO/sponsor-administered and CRO-free trials according to who was responsible for the management of the crucial setup phases.

RESULTS

Of 113 trials, 62 (54.9%) were CRO-administered, 34 (30.1%) were sponsor-administered, and 17 (15.0%) were CRO-free. The median time from feasibility invitation to documentation obtainment was 151 days in the CRO-administered trials versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 120 in the CRO-free trials. The time from document submission to contract signature was 142 days in the CRO-administered versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 132 in the CRO-free trials. The time from global accrual opening to first patient enrollment was 247 days for the CRO-administered versus 194 in the sponsor-administered and 151 in the CRO-free trials. No significant differences were observed in terms of the median overall timeline: 21 months in the CRO-administered, 15 in the sponsor-administered, and 18 months in the CRO-free studies (P = .29).

CONCLUSION

Although no statistically significant differences were identified, the results of our analysis support the idea that bureaucratic procedures might require more time in CRO-administered trials than in sponsor-administered and CRO-free studies. This bureaucratic delay could negatively affect Italian patients' screening and enrollment compared with other countries.

A multisite study of performance drivers among institutional review boards

Introduction

The time required to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is a frequent subject of efforts to reduce unnecessary delays in initiating clinical trials. This study was conducted by and for IRB directors to better understand factors affecting approval times as a first step in developing a quality improvement framework.

Methods

807 IRB-approved clinical trials from 5 University of California campuses were analyzed to identify operational and clinical trial characteristics influencing IRB approval times.

Results

High workloads, low staff ratios, limited training, and the number and types of ancillary reviews resulted in longer approval times. Biosafety reviews and the need for billing coverage analysis were ancillary reviews that contributed to the longest delays. Federally funded and multisite clinical trials had shorter approval times. Variability in between individual committees at each institution reviewing phase 3 multisite clinical trials also contributed to delays for some protocols. Accreditation was not associated with shorter approval times.

Conclusions

Reducing unnecessary delays in obtaining IRB approval will require a quality improvement framework that considers operational and study characteristics as well as the larger institutional regulatory environment.

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development

This commentary assesses the factors necessary for the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs. The metrics presented here may be useful as a rubric for new and established programs.

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator‐initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand‐alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease‐oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

Clinical Trial Characteristics and Barriers to Participant Accrual: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience over 30 years, a Historical Foundation for Trial Improvement

Purpose: Slow-accruing clinical trials delay the translation of basic biomedical research, contribute to increasing health care costs, and may prohibit trials from reaching their original goals.Experimental Design: We analyzed a prospectively maintained institutional database that tracks all clinical studies at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX). Inclusion criteria were activated phase I-III trials, maximum projected accrual ≥10 participants, and activation prior to March 25, 2011. The primary outcome was slow accrual, defined as <2 participants per year. Correlations of trial characteristics with slow accrual were assessed with logistic regression.Results: A total of 4,269 clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were activated between January 5, 1981, and March 25, 2011, with a total of 145,214 participants enrolled. Median total enrolment was 16 [interquartile range (IQR), 5-34], with an average enrolment rate of 8.7 participants per year (IQR, 3.3-17.7). There were 755 (18%) trials classified as slow accruing. On multivariable analysis, slow accrual exhibited robust associations with national cooperative group trials (OR = 4.16, P < 0.0001 vs. industry sponsored), time from trial activation to first enrolment (OR = 1.13 per month, P < 0.0001), and maximum targeted accrual (OR = 0.16 per log10 increase, P < 0.0001). Recursive partitioning analysis identified trials requiring more than 70 days (2.3 months) between activation and first participant enrolment as having higher odds of slow accrual (23% vs. 5%, OR = 5.56, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: We identified factors associated with slow trial accrual. Given the lack of data on clinical trials at the institutional level, these data will help build a foundation from which targeted initiatives may be developed to improve the clinical trial enterprise. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1414-21. ©2017 AACR.

Application of Incident Command Structure to clinical trial management in the academic setting: principles and lessons learned

Background

Clinical trial success depends on appropriate management, but practical guidance to trial organisation and planning is lacking. The Incident Command System (ICS) is the ‘gold standard’ management system developed for managing diverse operations in major incident and public health arenas. It enables effective and flexible management through integration of personnel, procedures, resources, and communications within a common hierarchical organisational structure. Conventional ICS organisation consists of five function modules: Command, Planning, Operations, Logistics, and Finance/Administration. Large clinical trials will require a separate Regulatory Administrative arm, and an Information arm, consisting of dedicated data management and information technology staff. We applied ICS principles to organisation and management of the Prehospital Use of Plasma in Traumatic Haemorrhage (PUPTH) trial. This trial was a multidepartmental, multiagency, randomised clinical trial investigating prehospital administration of thawed plasma on mortality and coagulation response in severely injured trauma patients.

We describe the ICS system as it would apply to large clinical trials in general, and the benefits, barriers, and lessons learned in utilising ICS principles to reorganise and coordinate the PUPTH trial.

Results

Without a formal trial management structure, early stages of the trial were characterised by inertia and organisational confusion. Implementing ICS improved organisation, coordination, and communication between multiple agencies and service groups, and greatly streamlined regulatory compliance administration. However, unfamiliarity of clinicians with ICS culture, conflicting resource allocation priorities, and communication bottlenecks were significant barriers.

Conclusions

ICS is a flexible and powerful organisational tool for managing large complex clinical trials. However, for successful implementation the cultural, psychological, and social environment of trial participants must be accounted for, and personnel need to be educated in the basics of ICS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02303964. Registered on 28 November 2014.

Optimization of protocol design: a path to efficient, lower cost clinical trial execution

Managing clinical trials requires strategic planning and efficient execution. In order to achieve a timely delivery of important clinical trials' outcomes, it is useful to establish standardized trial management guidelines and develop robust scoring methodology for evaluation of study protocol complexity. This review will explore the challenges clinical teams face in developing protocols to ensure that the right patients are enrolled and the right data are collected to demonstrate that a drug is safe and efficacious, while managing study costs and study complexity based on proposed comprehensive scoring model. Key factors to consider when developing protocols and techniques to minimize complexity will be discussed. A methodology to identify processes at planning phase, approaches to increase fiscal return and mitigate fiscal compliance risk for clinical trials will be addressed.

Modifying the Clinical Research Infrastructure at a Dedicated Clinical Trials Unit: Assessment of Trial Development, Activation, and Participant Accrual

Purpose: Information on processes for trials assessing investigational therapeutics is sparse. We assessed the trial development processes within the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (ICT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) and analyzed their effects on the trial activation timeline and enrolment.Experimental Design: Data were from a prospectively maintained registry that tracks all clinical studies at MD Anderson. From this database, we identified 2,261 activated phase I-III trials; 221 were done at the ICT. ICT trials were matched to trials from other MD Anderson departments by phase, sponsorship, and submission year. Trial performance metrics were compared with paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests.Results: We identified three facets of the ICT research infrastructure: parallel processing of trial approval steps; a physician-led research team; and regular weekly meetings to foster research accountability. Separate analyses were conducted stratified by sponsorship [industry (133 ICT and 133 non-ICT trials) or institutional (68 ICT and 68 non-ICT trials)]. ICT trial development was faster from IRB approval to activation (median difference of 1.1 months for industry-sponsored trials vs. 2.3 months for institutional) and from activation to first enrolment (median difference of 0.3 months for industry vs. 1.2 months for institutional; all matched P < 0.05). ICT trials also accrued more patients (median difference of 8 participants for industry vs. 33.5 for institutional) quicker (median difference 4.8 participants/year for industry vs. 11.1 for institutional; all matched P < 0.05).Conclusions: Use of a clinical research-focused infrastructure within a large academic cancer center was associated with efficient trial development and participant accrual. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1407-13. ©2016 AACR.

The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network: An Effective Infrastructure for Addressing Important Issues in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a rapidly evolving field with active preclinical and clinical development of new strategies for patient assessment, graft selection and manipulation, and pre- and post-transplantation drug and cell therapy. New strategies require evaluation in definitive clinical trials; however, HCT trials face unique challenges, including the relatively small number of transplantations performed at any single center, the diverse indications for HCT requiring dissimilar approaches, the complex nature of the intervention itself, the risk of multiple complications in the immediate post-transplantation period, and the risk of important, though infrequent, late effects. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) was established by the US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute to meet these challenges. In its 15 years as a network, the BMT CTN has proven to be a successful infrastructure for planning, implementing, and completing such trials and for providing definitive answers to questions leading to improvements in the understanding and practice of HCT. It has opened 37 trials, about one-half phase 2 and one-half phase 3, enrolled more than 8000 patients, and published 57 papers addressing important issues in the treatment of patients with life-threatening malignant and nonmalignant blood disorders. This review describes the network's accomplishments, key components of its success, lessons learned over the past 15 years, and challenges for the future.

Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach

Background

The administrative process associated with clinical trial activation has been criticized as costly, complex, and time-consuming. Prior research has concentrated on identifying administrative barriers and proposing various solutions to reduce activation time, and consequently associated costs. Here, we expand on previous research by incorporating social network analysis and discrete-event simulation to support process improvement decision-making.

Methods

We searched for all operational data associated with the administrative process of activating industry-sponsored clinical trials at the Office of Clinical Research of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. We limited the search to those trials initiated and activated between July 2011 and June 2012. We described the process using value stream mapping, studied the interactions of the various process participants using social network analysis, and modeled potential process modifications using discrete-event simulation.

Results

The administrative process comprised 5 sub-processes, 30 activities, 11 decision points, 5 loops, and 8 participants. The mean activation time was 76.6 days. Rate-limiting sub-processes were those of contract and budget development. Key participants during contract and budget development were the Office of Clinical Research, sponsors, and the principal investigator. Simulation results indicate that slight increments on the number of trials, arriving to the Office of Clinical Research, would increase activation time by 11 %. Also, incrementing the efficiency of contract and budget development would reduce the activation time by 28 %. Finally, better synchronization between contract and budget development would reduce time spent on batching documentation; however, no improvements would be attained in total activation time.

Conclusion

The presented process improvement analytic framework not only identifies administrative barriers, but also helps to devise and evaluate potential improvement scenarios. The strength of our framework lies in its system analysis approach that recognizes the stochastic duration of the activation process and the interdependence between process activities and entities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of NCI-mandated scientific review on protocol development and content

PURPOSE

The NCI requirement that clinical trials at NCI-designated cancer centers undergo scientific review in addition to Institutional Review Board review is unique among medical specialties. We evaluated the impact of this process on protocol development and content.

METHODS

We analyzed cancer clinical trials that underwent full board review by the Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. We analyzed associations between trial characteristics, PRMC decisions, and protocol modifications using Chi-square testing, Fishers exact testing, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 226 trials were analyzed. Of these, 77% were industry-sponsored and 23% were investigator-initiated. Initial PRMC decisions were: approval (40%), provisional approval (52%), deferral (7%), and disapproval (1%). These decisions were associated with study sponsor (P<.001) and phase (P<.001). Ultimately, 97% of industry-sponsored and 90% of investigator-initiated trials were approved (P=.05). Changes were requested for 27% of industry-sponsored trials compared with 54% of investigator-initiated trials (P<.001). Total changes requested (mean, 5.6 vs 2.4; P<.001) and implemented (mean, 4.6 vs 2.1; P=.008) per protocol were significantly greater for investigator-initiated trials. Changes related to study design were more commonly requested (35% vs 13% of trials) and implemented (40% vs 5% of trials) for investigator-initiated trials compared with industry-sponsored trials (P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

NCI-mandated scientific protocol review seems to have a substantial impact on investigator-initiated trials but less effect on industry-sponsored trials. These findings may provide guidance on development and prioritization of institutional protocol review policies.

A Trial Activation Initiative to Accelerate Trial Opening in an Academic Medical Center

Delays in trial opening should be considered critical for the sake of not only the sponsor but the patients, as they may result in inequities of care. The Asan Medical Center, in Seoul, Korea, implemented a trial activation initiative in July 2012, in an aim to expedite the trial initiation timeline. Time intervals between trial initiation steps and the rate of institutional review board (IRB) and clinical trial agreement (CTA) parallel submission were assessed. A higher rate of parallel IRB and CTA submissions was observed after initiative implementation (25.5% vs 52.3%; P < .001). Initiative applications were shown to significantly accelerate the median trial opening time, from 114 to 81 days ( P < .001). Strategic processing of parallel submissions greatly shortened the median time required for trial initiation from 117 to 61 days compared with sequential submissions ( P < .001). A trial activation initiative including parallel IRB and CTA submissions is an effective tool for accelerating trial commencements.

Time required to start multicentre clinical trials within the Italian Medicine Agency programme of support for independent research

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Time allowed for independent ethics committees (IECs) and administrative offices to assess and activate clinical trials is regulated by law. This study aims to describe time spent activating two multicentre non-profit trials supported by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Five non-AIFA supported (NAS) trials were used as a benchmark.

METHODS

The two AIFA-supported trials were FATA-GIM3 (optimal adjuvant hormonal treatment for breast cancer) and TOSCA (duration of adjuvant FOLFOX in colorectal cancer). The five NAS trials focused on lung or ovarian cancer. The following were measured for all trials: date of submission of trial documentation to peripheral IEC, date of IEC opinion and date trial contracts were signed. Times are reported in months.

RESULTS

106 centres applied to participate in FATA-GIM3 and 137 in TOSCA. An IEC opinion was issued by 100/106 (1 negative opinion) and 137/137 (2 negative opinions) centres, with a median time from submission of 3.6 months (range 0.1-60.2). After a positive IEC opinion, the median time before signing the trial contract was 3.3 months (0.1-59.2). Contracts were signed with 93/99 and 135/135 centres, with a median time from submission of study documentation of 8.4 months (0.5-61.1). Times for NAS trials were not substantially different.

CONCLUSIONS

FATA-GIM3 and TOSCA centres were opened after a median of 8 months, consisting of nearly 4 months each for IEC opinion and administrative signature, similar to the NAS trials. The process of trial activation in Italy remains inefficient and takes far longer than legally allowed.

Improving cardiovascular clinical trials conduct in the United States: recommendation from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators

Advances in medical therapies leading to improved patient outcomes are in large part related to successful conduct of clinical trials that offer critical information regarding the efficacy and safety of novel interventions. The conduct of clinical trials in the United States, however, continues to face increasing challenges with recruitment and retention. These trends are paralleled by an increasing shift toward more multinational trials where most participants are enrolled in countries outside the United States, bringing into question the generalizability of the results to the American population. This manuscript presents the perspectives and recommendations from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators who attended a meeting facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration to improve upon the current clinical trial trends in the United States.

Improving clinical trial accrual through a novel feedback approach: Lessons learned from a single disease site group

PURPOSE

Physician participation is critical for the success of clinical trials. Many efforts have been made to aid physicians with accrual. The aim of our study was to determine what impact a new feedback initiative had on clinical trial accrual and recruitment within a large disease site group.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A novel feedback initiative was implemented within a large multidisciplinary disease site group. Feedback on trial recruitment by physician and by study for the month and year to date was formally presented at the end of each trial month at weekly tumor board meetings. In addition, the feedback was sent via email. Trial recruitment was assessed both preintervention and postintervention.

RESULTS

A 9-month reporting period both preintervention and postintervention are reported. Total accruals within each observation window were 79 versus 209 patients, respectively. Preintervention, the mean number of patients accrued per month was 8.44 (range, 2-16). Postintervention, the mean number of patients accrued was 23.2 (range, 14-48). Preintervention, physicians only accrued to trials within their specialty. Postintervention, this improved by 4% monthly.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians play a key role in the success of clinical trials. By adopting a simple monthly feedback communication initiative, we were able to improve clinical trial accruals. Long-term assessment is required to understand longitudinal impact on accrual rates.