Search

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the conduct of clinical trials through delay, interruption or cancellation. Decentralised methods in clinical trials could help to continue trials during a pandemic. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study conducted early in the pandemic to gain insight into and describe the experiences of organisations involved in clinical trials, with regard to the impact of COVID-19 on the conduct of trials, and the adoption of decentralised methods prior to, and as mitigation for the impact, of COVID-19. Methods A survey with 11 open-ended and four multiple choice questions was conducted in June 2020 among member organisations of the public-private “Trials@Home” consortium. The survey investigated (1) the impact and challenges of COVID-19 on the continuation of ongoing clinical trials, (2) the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials prior to and as a mitigation strategy for COVID-19, (3) the challenges of conducting clinical trials during COVID-19, (4) the expected permanency of COVID-19-driven changes to the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials, and (5) lessons learned from conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. A thematic, inductive analysis of open survey questions was performed, complemented with descriptive statistics (frequencies and distributions). Results The survey had a response rate of 81%. All organisations included in the analysis (n = 18) implemented (some) decentralised methods in their clinical trials prior to COVID-19, and 15 (83%) implemented decentralised methods as mitigation for COVID-19. Decentralised methods for IMP supply, patient-health care provider interaction and communication, clinic visits and source document verification were used more often as mitigation strategies than they were used prior to COVID-19. Many respondents expect to maintain those decentralised methods they implemented during COVID-19 in ongoing trials, as well as implement them in future trials. Conclusions Decentralised methods are a widely implemented mitigation strategy for trial conduct in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey show that there is an interest to continue the use of decentralised methods in future trials, but important points of attention have been identified that need solutions to help guide the transition from the traditional trial model to a more decentralised trial model.

Abstract Background Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are clinical trials where all or most trial activities occur in or near participants’ homes instead of hospitals or research sites. While more convenient for participants, DCTs may offer limited opportunities to build trust with investigators and trial teams. This qualitative analysis explored DCT stakeholder views to inform strategies for maximising participant recruitment, retention, and adherence. Methods A secondary analysis of original interview transcripts focused on participant engagement: recruitment, retention, and adherence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including trial managers and administrators, investigators, nurses, vendors, and patient representatives. Interview data were coded using a thematic approach to generate descriptive themes. Results Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Three components of participant engagement in DCTs were identified: identifying and attracting potential participants, retaining participants and encouraging adherence, and involvement of patients and the public. Interviewees believed that a potential participant’s beliefs about research value and their trust in the research team strongly influenced the likelihood of taking part in a DCT. Early involvement of patients was identified as one way to gauge participant priorities. However, perceived burden was seen as a barrier to recruitment. Factors influencing retention and adherence were related to the same underlying motivators that drove recruitment: personal values, circumstances, and burden. Being part of a DCT should not conflict with the original motivations to participate. Conclusion Recruitment, retention, and adherence in DCTs are driven by factors that have previously been found to affect conventional clinical trials. Increasing patient and public involvement can address many of these factors. In contrast to conventional trials, DCTs are perceived as requiring greater emphasis on communication, and contact, to engender trust between participants and researchers despite a relative lack of in-person interaction.

Abstract Background Obtaining evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety of widely prescribed drugs in a timely and cost-effective way is a major challenge for healthcare systems. Here, we describe the feasibility of the Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) study that compares a thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics for hypertension as an exemplar of a more general framework for efficient generation of such evidence. In 2011, the UK NICE hypertension guideline included a recommendation that thiazide-like diuretics (such as indapamide) be used in preference to thiazide diuretics (such as bendroflumethiazide) for hypertension. There is sparse evidence backing this recommendation, and bendroflumethiazide remains widely used in the UK. Methods Patients prescribed indapamide or bendroflumethiazide regularly for hypertension were identified in participating general practices. Allocation of a prescribing policy favouring one of these drugs was then randomly applied to the practice and, where required to comply with the policy, repeat prescriptions switched by pharmacy staff. Patients were informed of the potential switch by letter and given the opportunity to opt out. Practice adherence to the randomised policy was assessed by measuring the amount of policy drug prescribed as a proportion of total combined indapamide and bendroflumethiazide. Routinely collected hospitalisation and death data in the NHS will be used to compare cardiovascular event rates between the two policies. Results This pilot recruited 30 primary care practices in five Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards. Fifteen practices were randomised to indapamide (2682 patients) and 15 to bendroflumethiazide (3437 patients), a study population of 6119 patients. Prior to randomisation, bendroflumethiazide was prescribed to 78% of patients prescribed either of these drugs. Only 1.6% of patients opted out of the proposed medication switch. Conclusion The pilot and subsequent recruitment confirms the methodology is scalable within NHS Scotland for a fully powered larger study; currently, 102 GP practices (> 12,700 patients) are participating in this study. It has the potential to efficiently produce externally valid comparative effectiveness data with minimal disruption to practice staff or patients. Streamlining this pragmatic trial approach has demonstrated the feasibility of a random prescribing policy design framework that can be adapted to other therapeutic areas. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017

Abstract Introduction Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension. Methods and analysis The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies’ effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of two years. A primary intention-to-treat time-to-event analysis will be used to estimate the relative effect of the two policies. Ethics and dissemination EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 5, 26 August 2021). The results will be disseminated widely in peer reviewed journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups. Trial registration ISRCTN 46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment).

Abstract Background To manage the risk factors and to improve clinical outcomes, patients with stroke commonly receive multiple cardiovascular medications. However, there is a lack of evidence on the optimum combination of medication therapy in the primary care setting after ischemic stroke. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of multiple cardiovascular medications on long-term survival after an incident stroke event (ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). Methods This study consisted of 52,619 patients aged 45 and above with an incident stroke event between 2007 and 2016 in The Health Improvement Network database. We estimated the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with multiple cardiovascular medications versus monotherapy using a marginal structural model. Results During an average follow-up of 3.6 years, there were 9230 deaths (7635 in multiple cardiovascular medication groups and 1595 in the monotherapy group). Compared with patients prescribed monotherapy only, the HRs of mortality were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.89) for two medications, 0.65 (0.59–0.70) for three medications, 0.61 (0.56–0.67) for four medications, 0.60 (0.54–0.66) for five medications and 0.66 (0.59–0.74) for ≥ six medications. Patients with any four classes of antiplatelet agents (APAs), lipid-regulating medications (LRMs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had the lowest risk of mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.46–0.57) versus any one class. The combination containing APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs was associated with a 61% (95% CI 53–68%) lower risk of mortality compared with APAs alone. Conclusion Our results suggested that combination therapy of four or five cardiovascular medications may be optimal to improve long-term survival after incident ischemic stroke or TIA. APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs were the optimal constituents of combination therapy in the present study.

Abstract Background Recruitment to clinical trials can be challenging. Methods that improve the efficiency of trial recruitment are needed to increase successful study completions. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether sending an audio-visual presentation on a digital versatile disc (DVD), along with usual study invitation materials, would improve recruitment to the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST), a clinical trial in patients with established gout. Methods Potential participants for the FAST study who were identified by searches of GP records in Scottish primary care practices between August 2013 and July 2014 were included in this study. Individuals were randomly allocated to receive either a standard invitation (letter and information leaflet) or a standard invitation and a DVD containing an audio-visual presentation explaining the background and operation of FAST. Data on invitation response rates, screening attendances and randomisations were collected by research nurses. Results One thousand fifty potential participants were invited to take part in FAST during this period. 509 individuals were randomised to receive the DVD presentation and the standard invitation and 541 received a standard invitation only. DVD recipients were less likely to respond to the initial invitation (adjusted OR 0.76, CI 0.58–0.99) and marginally less likely to return a positive response (OR 0.75, CI 0.59–0.96). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in attendance for screening or randomisation. The DVD did not influence the age, gender, or socioeconomic deprivation scores of those responding positively to a letter of invitation. Conclusions The inclusion of a DVD presentation with FAST study invitations did not make any practical difference to the rate of positive response to invitation. Further innovation and evaluation will be required to improve recruitment to clinical trials. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Register. EudraCT Number: 2011–001883-23. ISRCTN registry. ISRCTN72443278.

Abstract Background The use of information technology (IT) is now the preferred method of capturing and storing clinical research data. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study predominantly uses electronic data capture and IT to compare morning dosing of hypertensive medication against evening dosing. Registration, consent, participant demographics and follow-up data are all captured via the study website. The aim of this article is to assess the success of the TIME methodology compared with similar studies. Methods To assess the TIME study, published literature on similar clinical trials was reviewed and compared against TIME recruitment, follow-up and email interaction data. Results The TIME website registered 31,695 individuals, 21,116 of whom were randomised. Recruitment cost per randomised participant varied by strategy: £17.40 by GP practice, £3.08 by UK Biobank and £58.82 for GoShare. Twelve-month follow-up retention rates were 96%. A total of 1089 participants have withdrawn from their assigned time of dosing, 2% of whom have declined follow-up by record linkage or further contact. When the TIME data are compared with similar study data, study recruitment is very successful. However, TIME suffers difficulties with participant follow-up and withdrawal rates similar to those of conventional studies. Conclusions The TIME study has been successful in recruitment. Follow-up, retention rates and withdrawal rates are all acceptable, but ongoing work is required to ensure participants remain engaged with the study. Various recruitment strategies are necessary, and all viable options should be encouraged to maintain participant engagement throughout the life of studies using IT.