Search

Background: Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed., Methods: Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes., Results: A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process., Conclusions: Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) has seen a substantial improvement over the last few years. Combination immunochemotherapy, such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), is now standard first-line therapy. However, the majority of patients relapse and require further therapy, and so new, effective, targeted therapies that improve remission rates, reduce relapses, and have fewer side effects, are required. The FLAIR trial will assess whether ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) is superior to FCR in terms of progression-free survival (PFS)., Methods/design: FLAIR is a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial in patients with previously untreated CLL. A total of 754 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive standard therapy with FCR or IR. Participants randomised to FCR will receive a maximum of six 28-day treatment cycles. Participants randomised to IR will receive six 28-day cycles of rituximab, and ibrutinib taken daily for 6 years until minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been recorded for the same amount of time as it took to become MRD negative, or until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS according to the International Workshop on CLL (IWCLL) criteria. Secondary endpoints include: overall survival; proportion of participants with undetectable MRD; response to therapy by IWCLL criteria; safety and toxicity; health-related quality of life (QoL); and cost-effectiveness., Discussion: The trial aims to provide evidence for the future first-line treatment of CLL patients by assessing whether IR is superior to FCR in terms of PFS, and whether toxicity rates are favourable., Trial Registration: ISRCTN01844152 . Registered on 8 August 2014, EudraCT number 2013-001944-76 . Registered on 26 April 2013.