Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches.

METHODS

We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression.

RESULTS

We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Participant perspectives on a phase I/II ocular gene therapy trial (NCT02077361)

Background: To learn from the experiences of potential clinical trial participants, participants in a Phase 1 ocular gene therapy trial, and their partners to improve communications and trial conduct. Materials and methods: Primary and secondary qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of potential participants (n = 20), clinical trial participants (n = 2) and their partners (n = 2) in a gene therapy clinical trial for choroideremia (NCT02077361). Analysis included: 1) thematic analysis of transcribed entrance and exit semi-structured interviews with trial participants and their partners; and 2) secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with potential trial participants, conducted prior to the initiation of the clinical trial. Results: Participants and partners who had received information during the consent process had a better understanding of the risks and benefits of participation in a Phase 1 gene therapy clinical trial than potential trial participants. However, participants and partners reported deficiencies in communication throughout the trial. Results highlight additional opportunities for trial staff to reinforce initial information about the trial, communicate logistical information and individual outcome data, and express appreciation for participation. Conclusions: Our study enabled clinical trial participants to describe their experiences in a clinical trial for a novel gene therapy. We provide practical recommendations to future clinical trial staff on communications and conduct participant perspectives. Communications strategies should address changing information needs over the course of the trial, express appreciation for participation and enable feedback from participants and their supporting family members, friends, or caregivers.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

Challenges in conducting clinical trials in nephrology: conclusions from a Kidney Disease-Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Despite the high costs of treatment of people with kidney disease and associated comorbid conditions, the amount of reliable information available to guide the care of such patients is very limited. Some treatments have been assessed in randomized trials, but most such trials have been too small to detect treatment effects of a magnitude that would be realistic to achieve with a single intervention. Therefore, KDIGO convened an international, multidisciplinary controversies conference titled "Challenges in the Conduct of Clinical Trials in Nephrology" to identify the key barriers to conducting trials in patients with kidney disease. The conference began with plenary talks focusing on the key areas of discussion that included appropriate trial design (covering identification and evaluation of kidney and nonkidney disease outcomes) and sensible trial execution (with particular emphasis on streamlining both design and conduct). Break out group discussions followed in which the key areas of agreement and remaining controversy were identified. Here we summarize the main findings from the conference and set out a range of potential solutions. If followed, these solutions could ensure future trials among people with kidney disease are sufficiently robust to provide reliable answers and are not constrained by inappropriate complexities in design or conduct.

EURAMOS-1, an international randomised study for osteosarcoma: results from pre-randomisation treatment

BACKGROUND

Four international study groups undertook a large study in resectable osteosarcoma, which included two randomised controlled trials, to determine the effect on survival of changing post-operative chemotherapy based on histological response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resectable osteosarcoma aged ≤40 years were treated with the MAP regimen, comprising pre-operatively of two 5-week cycles of cisplatin 120 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), methotrexate 12 g/m(2) × 2 (MAP) and post-operatively two further cycles of MAP and two cycles of just MA. Patients were randomised after surgery. Those with ≥10% viable tumour in the resected specimen received MAP or MAP with ifosfamide and etoposide. Those with <10% viable tumour were allocated to MAP or MAP followed by pegylated interferon. Longitudinal evaluation of quality of life was undertaken.

RESULTS

Recruitment was completed to the largest osteosarcoma study to date in 75 months. Commencing March 2005, 2260 patients were registered from 326 centres across 17 countries. About 1334 of 2260 registered patients (59%) were randomised. Pre-operative chemotherapy was completed according to protocol in 94%. Grade 3-4 neutropenia affected 83% of cycles and 59% were complicated by infection. There were three (0.13%) deaths related to pre-operative chemotherapy. At definitive surgery, 50% of patients had at least 90% necrosis in the resected specimen.

CONCLUSIONS

New models of collaboration are required to successfully conduct trials to improve outcomes of patients with rare cancers; EURAMOS-1 demonstrates achievability. Considerable regulatory, financial and operational challenges must be overcome to develop similar studies in the future. The trial is registered as NCT00134030 and ISRCTN 67613327.