Search

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways. Methods: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study. Results: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults—what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider—who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place. Conclusions: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants. Trial registration: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) and the NIHR CRN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic brought rapid and major changes to research, and those wishing to carry out Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities faced challenges, such as restrictions on movement and contact, illness, bereavement and risks to potential participants. Some researchers moved PPI to online settings during this time but remote consultations raise, as well as address, a number of challenges. It is important to learn from PPI undertaken in this period as face‐to‐face consultation may no longer be the dominant method for PPI. Methods: UK stay‐at‐home measures announced in March 2020 necessitated immediate revisions to the intended face‐to‐face methods of PPI consultation for the ESORT Study, which evaluated emergency surgery for patients with common acute conditions. PPI plans and methods were modified to all components being online. We describe and reflect on: initial plans and adaptation; recruitment; training and preparation; implementation, contextualisation and interpretation. Through first‐hand accounts we show how the PPI processes were developed, experienced and viewed by different partners in the process. Discussion and Conclusions: While concerns have been expressed about the possible limiting effects of forgoing face‐to‐face contact with PPI partners, we found important benefits from the altered dynamic of the online PPI environment. There were increased opportunities for participation which might encourage the involvement of a broader demographic, and unexpected benefits in that the online platform seemed to have a 'democratising' effect on the meetings, to the benefit of the PPI processes and outcomes. Other studies may however find that their particular research context raises particular challenges for the use of online methods, especially in relation to representation and inclusion, as new barriers to participation may be raised. It is important that methodological challenges are addressed, and researchers provide detailed examples of novel methods for discussion and empirical study. Patient and Public Contribution: We report a process which involved people with lived experience of emergency conditions and members of the public. A patient member was involved in the design and implementation, and two patients with lived experience contributed to the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials.Methods: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences.Results: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had.Conclusions: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.Methods and Findings: We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.Conclusions: Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain English summary: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future. Background: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. Methods: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference. Results: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice. Conclusions: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death. Methods: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death. Results: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death. Discussion: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing evidence that tight blood glucose (BG) control improves outcomes in critically ill adults. Children show similar hyperglycaemic responses to surgery or critical illness. However it is not known whether tight control will benefit children given maturational differences and different disease spectrum. Methods/Design: The study is an randomised open trial with two parallel groups to assess whether, for children undergoing intensive care in the UK aged = 16 years who are ventilated, have an arterial line in-situ and are receiving vasoactive support following injury, major surgery or in association with critical illness in whom it is anticipated such treatment will be required to continue for at least 12 hours, tight control will increase the numbers of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 30 days, and lead to improvement in a range of complications associated with intensive care treatment and be cost effective. Children in the tight control group will receive insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain BG between 4 and 7.0 mmol/l. Children in the control group will be treated according to a standard current approach to BG management. Children will be followed up to determine vital status and healthcare resources usage between discharge and 12 months post-randomisation. Information regarding overall health status, global neurological outcome, attention and behavioural status will be sought from a subgroup with traumatic brain injury (TBI). A difference of 2 days in the number of ventilator-free days within the first 30 days post-randomisation is considered clinically important. Conservatively assuming a standard deviation of a week across both trial arms, a type I error of 1% (2-sided test), and allowing for non-compliance, a total sample size of 1000 patients would have 90% power to detect this difference. To detect effect differences between cardiac and non-cardiac patients, a target sample size of 1500 is required. An economic evaluation will assess whether the costs of achieving tight BG control are justified by subsequent reductions in hospitalisation costs. Discussion: The relevance of tight glycaemic control in this population needs to be assessed formally before being accepted into standard practice. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: For some perinatal trials, parents can be asked to make important decisions about trial participation within limited timeframes in highly stressful circumstances. This qualitative study explores the pace of decision-making for 78 parents associated with one or more of four such trials in the UK. The themes associated with rapid decisions were concern for their baby, reactions to staff, and perceptions of the benefits and risks associated with the trial. Those who took longer to decide whether or not to participate often described similar emotions to those who made rapid decisions, but their slower decisions were because more time was available, they wanted further discussion or they found the decision particularly difficult. The majority of those who made rapid decisions felt that there were no risks associated with the trial in question, in contrast to the majority of those who made slower decisions who felt there were risks. The parents did not appear to view rapid decisions as problematic. Although there was evidence of parental vulnerability in each trial context, they largely felt that they acted swiftly and responsibly in the best interests of their child in accordance with the timeframes that were set for them. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Methods: The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results: Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Conclusion: Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates the views of parents of infants who took part in a neonatal trial in Great Britain. Suggestion on the importance of the feedback of trial results to participants; What the trial involved; Strategies used to present the feedback to the participants. INSETS: Communication of results to the parents;Extract from a letter to parents of surving babies;Key messages.

Background: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS.Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0-1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing.Findings: Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27-45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7-55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8·3% (IQR -26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase.Interpretation: Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors.Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations., Methods: Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols., Results: We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement., Discussion: Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The success of pharmacological randomised controlled trials (RCTs) depends on the recruitment of the required number of participants. Recruitment to RCTs for patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices raises specific additional challenges. The objectives of the study were 1) to explore patient perspectives on factors that influence RCT recruitment, 2) to understand factors that influence the success of recruitment from a staff perspective, and 3) to identify opportunities for tailored interventions to improve trial recruitment in this context., Methods: The qualitative study was embedded in a multi-centre blinded RCT (BOPPP trial) and was conducted alongside site opening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who enrolled to participate in the trial (n = 13), patients who declined to take part (n = 5), and staff who were responsible for recruiting participants to the trial (n = 18). An open approach to data collection and analysis was adopted and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to provide a theoretical lens through which to view influences on behaviour. Data was analysed using thematic analysis., Results: The findings consist of 5 overarching themes that outline trial recruitment influences at the patient, staff, team, organisational and trial levels: i) patient risks and benefits ii) staff attitudes, knowledge and capacity, iii) team-based approach, iv) organisational context and v) Trial collective. Patient-generated themes map onto thirteen of the fourteen TDF domains and staff-generated themes map onto all TDF domains. The overarching themes are not mutually exclusive; with evidence of direct interactions between patient and staff-level themes that influence recruitment behaviours., Conclusions: This study uses a theory-informed approach to gain new insights into improving clinical trial recruitment for patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices. Although people with cirrhosis often display decreased healthcare-seeking behaviours, we found that patients used research to empower themselves to improve their health. Pragmatic trials involving unpredictable populations require staff expertise in building trust, and a deep knowledge of the patient group and their vulnerabilities. RCT recruitment is also more successful when research visits align with what staff identified as the natural rhythm of care., Trial Registration: ISRCTN10324656; https://clinicaltrials.gov/., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.