Search

Abstract Introduction: The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be “focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research.” This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS. Methods: Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies. Results: Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel. Conclusions: The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS’ vision of TS.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS) Remote Technologies for Research Reference Center (REMOTECH) aims to support researchers using remote technologies. Understanding barriers specifically for engagement of diverse populations is critical to improve equitable access and increase diverse participation in research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers (N=30) within the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region, identified through participation in a previous survey as well as those known to have previously implemented remote technologies at ITHS institutions. We solicited specific concerns regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) related to remote research participant recruitment, retention, and implementation, as well as outcomes and potential solutions. Interview transcripts were coded, summarized, and emerging themes were identified. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The pandemic necessitated a shift to the use of remote research engagement strategies. Our interview findings show that researchers have a desire to: increase diversity through remote engagement options; decrease participant burden; and understand and include strategies that advance equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) efforts. While geographic diversity was positively impacted by the use of remote technologies, significant barriers and challenges currently exist in the use of remote technologies with respect to other types of diversity, for example access to technologies and limited financial resources. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Remote technologies in research could increase diversity, but interviewees shared barriers and challenges that prevent that from happening. Researchers would benefit from equity-oriented digital literacy resources to use with diverse populations. Such tools can also be used to guide study design/procedures, materials, and processes.

OBJECTIVES:. To analyze the temporal trend in enrollment rates in a COVID-19 platform trial during the first three waves of the pandemic in the United States. DESIGN:. Secondary analysis of data from the I-SPY COVID randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING:. Thirty-one hospitals throughout the United States. PATIENTS:. Patients who were approached, either directly or via a legally authorized representative, for consent and enrollment into the I-SPY COVID RCT. INTERVENTIONS:. None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:. Among 1,338 patients approached for the I-SPY COVID trial from July 30, 2020, to February 17, 2022, the number of patients who enrolled (n = 1,063) versus declined participation (n = 275) was used to calculate monthly enrollment rates. Overall, demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were similar between those who enrolled versus declined. Enrollment rates fluctuated over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but there were no significant trends over time (Mann-Kendall test, p = 0.21). Enrollment rates were also comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, sex, region of residence, COVID-19 severity of illness, and vaccination status were not significantly associated with the decision to decline consent. CONCLUSIONS:. In this secondary analysis of the I-SPY COVID clinical trial, there was no significant association between the enrollment rate and time period or vaccination status among all eligible patients approached for clinical trial participation. Additional studies are needed to better understand whether the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical trial participation and to develop strategies for encouraging participation in future COVID-19 and critical care clinical trials.

Summary: Background: An urgent need exists to rapidly screen potential therapeutics for severe COVID-19 or other emerging pathogens associated with high morbidity and mortality. Methods: Using an adaptive platform design created to rapidly evaluate investigational agents, hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥6 L/min oxygen were randomised to either a backbone regimen of dexamethasone and remdesivir alone (controls) or backbone plus one open-label investigational agent. Patients were enrolled to the arms described between July 30, 2020 and June 11, 2021 in 20 medical centres in the United States. The platform contained up to four potentially available investigational agents and controls available for randomisation during a single time-period. The two primary endpoints were time-to-recovery (

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of the CTSA consortium is to move scientific discoveries to clinical application. Translational science (TS) focuses on the process by which this happens, and NCATS supports pilot projects that propose TS questions. We are developing a rubric to guide program managers’ability to discriminate between TS and translational research (TR). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CTSA External Review Exchange Consortium (CEREC) and CEREC II are reciprocal review collaborations between CTSA hubs that identify reviewers for each other’s pilot grant applications. CEREC and CEREC II partners developed a 31-item rubric, based on NIH’s Translational Science Principles, for discriminating pilot TS grant applications from those proposing TR. The hubs contributed proposals pre-selected as either TS or TR projects. Then, experienced reviewers and/or program administrators from the hubs used the rubric to score each of the proposals. Reliability of the rubric will be assessed using inter-rater reliability (% agreement and kappa). To identify which of the items in the rubric best discriminate between TS and TR, Item Response Theory analysis will be employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Ten CEREC participating hubs submitted 30 applications: 20 TS proposals and 10 TR proposals. Twenty-two reviewers from 12 CEREC hubs evaluated the applications by using the scoring rubric; at least two reviewers evaluated each proposal. The results of the analyses will describe the reliability of the rubric and identify which of the seven TS Principles are most useful for distinguishing between TS and TR pilot grant proposals. Ultimately, this work will yield a scoring rubric that will be disseminated throughout the CTSA network to facilitate the screening of TS applications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Optimizing research processes is critical to ensure that scientific discoveries are integrated into clinical practice and public health policy as rapidly, efficiently, and equitably as possible. By appropriately identifying and funding TS projects, CTSA hubs can accelerate the impact of clinical and translational research.