Analysis of Rates of Completion, Delays, and Participant Recruitment in Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery

Comparison of targeted web-based advertising versus traditional methods for recruiting older adults into clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recruiting older adults into clinical trials can be particularly challenging. Our objective was to determine if targeted web-based advertising is an effective recruitment strategy.

METHODS

We compared the recruitment rates of traditional and targeted web-based methods for three representative clinical trials involving older adults. All studies utilized traditional recruitment methods initially, but shifted toward primarily targeted web-based advertising after experiencing slow recruitment rates.

RESULTS

We found that web-based advertising reached more individuals compared to traditional methods. Compared to traditional methods, web-based methods also had at least twice the rate of expressed interest, completion of telephone and in-person screening, eligibility, and enrollment. Additionally, the proportion of individuals excluded after the telephone screening did not differ according to whether targeted web-based advertising (STAMINA: 51%; Berries and Steps: 62%; ISTIM: 20%) or traditional methods (STAMINA: 48%; Berries and Steps: 69%; ISTIM: 23%) were used within each study. Those recruited using web-based advertisements tended to be younger compared to traditional methods, but were similar in racial distribution and education.

CONCLUSION

Targeted web-based advertisements may be more effective in recruiting older adults for clinical trials at a faster rate than traditional recruitment methods, but need further evaluation of compatible study designs, potential population bias, and cost-effectiveness.

Illuminating the landscape of high-level clinical trial opportunities in the All of Us Research Program

OBJECTIVE

With its size and diversity, the All of Us Research Program has the potential to power and improve representation in clinical trials through ancillary studies like Nutrition for Precision Health. We sought to characterize high-level trial opportunities for the diverse participants and sponsors of future trial investment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We matched All of Us participants with available trials on ClinicalTrials.gov based on medical conditions, age, sex, and geographic location. Based on the number of matched trials, we (1) developed the Trial Opportunities Compass (TOC) to help sponsors assess trial investment portfolios, (2) characterized the landscape of trial opportunities in a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS), and (3) assessed the relationship between trial opportunities and social determinants of health (SDoH) to identify potential barriers to trial participation.

RESULTS

Our study included 181 529 All of Us participants and 18 634 trials. The TOC identified opportunities for portfolio investment and gaps in currently available trials across federal, industrial, and academic sponsors. PheWAS results revealed an emphasis on mental disorder-related trials, with anxiety disorder having the highest adjusted increase in the number of matched trials (59% [95% CI, 57-62]; P < 1e-300). Participants from certain communities underrepresented in biomedical research, including self-reported racial and ethnic minorities, had more matched trials after adjusting for other factors. Living in a nonmetropolitan area was associated with up to 13.1 times fewer matched trials.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

All of Us data are a valuable resource for identifying trial opportunities to inform trial portfolio planning. Characterizing these opportunities with consideration for SDoH can provide guidance on prioritizing the most pressing barriers to trial participation.

Internet-based enrollment of a myositis patient cohort-a national experience

INTRODUCTION

Recruitment for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) research is a challenge due to the rarity of the disease and the scarcity of specialized myositis centers. Online recruitment may be a feasible alternative to reach rare disease patients. We evaluated various online recruitment methods in a large longitudinal IIM cohort.

METHODS

The "Myositis Patient Centered Tele-Research" (My Pacer) is a prospective 6-month observational study of IIM, recruited online and through traditional clinic visits. We utilized diverse recruitment methods, such as physician referrals, social media, websites, direct emails, and partnerships with patient-support organizations. Participants self-enrolled and completed pre-screening, e-consenting, and release of medical information via the study-specific app or website. We compared the effectiveness of various recruitment and enrollment methods and the characteristics of the population recruited.

RESULTS

A total of 841 participants completed the pre-screening; 408 completed e-consent and registration. From those, 353 (86.5%) were remotely recruited. Email (201; 49.26%) and social media (77; 18.87%) were important recruitment tools. Patient-support organizations were responsible for disseminating the study to 312 (75.46%) participants. The study app was used by 232 (65.72%) individuals for enrollment, with app users being slightly younger than website users (p = 0.001). Participants were mostly female 317 (77.76%), mean age of 54.84 years, White 328 (80.42%), Black 49 (12%), Asian 13 (3.26%), and non-Hispanic 378 (92.65%). Our study reached all U.S. regions and 45 (90%) U.S. states.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media and partnerships with patient-support organizations lead to a high rate of recruitment, with a wide reach, and a reasonably diverse population.

Preferred study designs to support a comparative therapeutic strategy question in oncology: a vignette study

OBJECTIVES

Some therapeutic strategy questions in oncology could be answered with studies using observational data. Target trial emulation is the application of design principles from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to the analysis of observational data, to reduce design-induced biases. Our objective was to determine which type of study physicians would preferably plan to answer a comparative effectiveness question lacking evidence in oncology.

METHODS

We launched an online survey among physicians specialized in oncology. We constructed a vignette-based inquiry where vignettes described study scenarios which could be conducted to answer the predefined question. We designed six vignettes described by study design (RCT or observational study with a trial emulation framework), main study characteristics, probability of the study succeeding and anticipated delay before results availability. Participants randomly assessed five pair-wise comparisons of the vignettes and were asked which study they would preferably plan by using a Likert scale ranging from -5 to 5. The main outcome was the evaluation of clinicians' preferences for each pairwise comparison. Mean and median preference scores were calculated.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen participants, specialized in many tumor types, assessed at least one comparison with 82% reporting France as their country of affiliation. The interquartile range was -4 to 4 across pairwise comparisons. The median preference score was in disfavor of the monocentric RCT for the five comparisons where it appeared. The median preference score was strongly in favor of the multicentric national emulated trial when compared to the monocentric emulated trial 4 [IQR 2.5-4]. The mean preference score was the highest for the large European observational study 1.14 (SD 3.33), while the mean preference score was the lowest for the monocentric RCT -1.86 (SD 2.93).

CONCLUSION

No study design was strongly preferred, but the monocentric RCT was the least favored study in pair-wise comparisons. The planification of the new research is a compromise between scientific soundness, feasibility, cost, and time before obtaining results. We need to have the right answers to the right questions at the right time.

In India, most principal investigators have run very few trials over the years

Background

In the past, clinical trials run in India have been the subject of criticism. Among other steps to improve the trial ecosystem, for some time the government limited the number of trials that a Principal Investigator (PI) could run to three at a time. We were interested to know how many trials PIs in India tend to run at a time.

Methods

We accessed the 52,149 trial records hosted by the Clinical Trials Registry-India in April 2023. Of these, we shortlisted trials that had run in India, were interventional, and involved certain interventions such as drug, biological etc. We used multiple parameters, such as email ID, phone number etc. to determine whether one name always represented the same PI and whether two names corresponded to the same PI. We then determined how many trials each PI had run.

Results

We found that 3,916 unique PI names were associated with 6,665 trials. Of these, 2,963 (75.7%) PIs had run a single study. Only 251 (6.4%) had run more than three trials. A mere 14 PIs had run 20 or more trials. The 14 PIs were affiliated with local pharma companies (6), local or global contract research organizations (4), multinational pharma companies (3) and the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (1). The maximum number of trials run by a single PI was 108. Of these, the largest number run in a single year, 2022, was 53.

Conclusion

Each PI name needs to be connected to a unique ID that does not change with time, so that it is easier to track the number of trials that a given PI has run. The number of studies run by a given PI at a given time must not be excessive and needs to be monitored more actively. The government needs to consider whether a cap on the number of trials that a PI runs at a time is required and what infrastructure needs to be in place to facilitate higher numbers of trials. Trial registry records need to be updated more regularly. Other countries may wish to do likewise.

Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Objective

Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned.

Methods

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment.

Results

There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years).

Conclusions

Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

Influences on clinical trial participation: Enhancing recruitment through a gender lens - A scoping review

Background

Suboptimal clinical trial recruitment contributes to research waste. Evidence suggests there may be gender-based differences in willingness to participate in clinical research. Identifying gender-based differences impacting the willingness of trial participation may assist trial recruitment.

Objectives

To examine factors that influence the willingness of men and women to participate in clinical trials and to identify modifiable factors that may be targeted to optimise trial participation.

Material and methods

Electronic databases were searched with key words relating to 'gender', 'willingness to participate' and 'trial'. Included studies were English language and reported gender-based differences in willingness to participate in clinical trials, or factors that influence a single gender to participate in clinical trials. Studies were excluded if they described the demographic factors of trial participants or if the majority of participants were pregnant. Extracted data were coded, categorized, analysed thematically and interpreted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

Results

Sixty-three studies were included. Two main themes were identified: trial characteristics and participant characteristics. A number of gender-based differences moderating willingness to participate were observed although only one, 'concern for self' was found to influence actual trial participation rates between genders.

Conclusion

The relationship between factors influencing willingness to participate in clinical trials is complex. The influence of gender on willingness to participate, while important, may be moderated by other factors including socioeconomic status, ethnicity and health condition. Exploring factors that influence willingness to participate specific to a study cohort likely offers the most promise to optimise trial recruitment of that cohort.