Streamlined mail-based methods for large randomised trials: lessons learnt from the ASCEND study

Design considerations for future renoprotection trials in the era of multiple therapies for chronic kidney disease

In the last 5-10 years, several large high-quality research trials testing new treatments versus a dummy treatment in patients with kidney disease have provided new discoveries, particularly among people with diabetes. Some of these trials included patients with a wide variety of kidney diseases and therefore provided important information on how effective the treatment is, and whether it is safe to use for many people (and not just those with a specific type of kidney disease). The findings are particularly important as they suggest that, once established, kidney disease progresses in similar ways regardless of the initiating cause. These new treatments importantly slow kidney disease progression but, even when used together, do not arrest the loss of kidney function. New research is still needed to test new potential treatments. Now that we have several drugs that can be used to treat kidney disease, there are new challenges when designing and conducting new trials. These include the reduced risk of kidney disease progression and heart disease (because of the new treatments available). Future research trials need to include a sufficiently large number of patients to be able to answer research questions reliably. In addition, different types of people and diseases should be included. In an age of increasing regulation and bureaucracy, conducting such trials is challenging. Simplifying the design and conduct of future trials by focusing only on the necessary components needed to answer the research key question(s) is important. Such trials reduce the burden of participation for patients and busy clinical staff, whilst still ensuring careful focus on patient safety and data quality. We hope more high-quality trials that are sufficiently large, inclusive and simple will be conducted in the future, so that kidney teams can offer better care to their patients.

ABSTRACT

Nephrology has benefited from conducting increasingly large high-quality trials in the last 5-10 years. In addition to the long-standing known benefits of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, we now have multiple pharmacotherapies that provide kidney and/or cardiovascular protection for certain types of patient with chronic kidney disease (CKD). These include sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), a non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Trials of SGLT2i have had particularly important impact, as wide eligibility criteria in pivotal trials have enabled safety and efficacy across a wide range of causes of CKD to be demonstrated. These findings support the concept of final common pathways of CKD progression and should encourage similar trial designs recruiting broad ranges of patients at risk of CKD progression. This is important as these new drugs do not completely arrest CKD progression nor do they mitigate the full excess of cardiovascular disease. In the current era of multiple therapies to manage risk of CKD progression, trial design and conduct also need to consider new challenges. These include falling event rates, establishing standard of care for participants pre-randomization and improving the inclusion of trial participants understudied in previous trials. Streamlining trial design and conduct and reducing participation burden for patients and clinicians is increasingly important to facilitate larger sample sizes and to optimize adherence to study interventions and follow-up. Potential other solutions include maintaining a focus on wide generalizability (to include understudied patient groups) and empowering patients to volunteer for trials (through public and patient involvement and large-scale invitation methods), as well as innovations in trial design (including use of pre-randomization run-in periods to implement standard of care and factorial or platform trials to assess multiple treatments simultaneously).

Learning from remote decentralised clinical trial experiences: A qualitative analysis of interviews with trial personnel, patient representatives and other stakeholders

AIMS

The aim of the study was to identify actionable learning points from stakeholders in remote decentralised clinical trials (RDCTs) to inform their future design and conduct.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including senior managers, trial managers, technology experts, principal investigators, clinical investigators, research scientists, research nurses, vendors, patient representatives and project assistants. The interview data were coded using a thematic approach, identifying similarities, differences and clustering to generate descriptive themes. Further refinement of themes was guided by empirical phenomenology, grounding explanation in the meanings that interviewees gave to their experiences.

RESULTS

Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Actionable learning points were generated from the thematic analysis. Patient involvement and participant engagement were seen as critical to the success of RDCTs where in-person contact is minimal or nonexistent. Involving patients in identifying the research question, creating recruitment materials, apps and websites, and providing ongoing feedback to trial participants were regarded as facilitating recruitment and engagement. Building strong relationships early with trial partners was thought to support RDCT conduct. Multiple modes of capturing information, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and routinely collected data, were felt to contribute to data completeness. However, RDCTs may transfer trial activity burden onto participants and remote-working research staff, therefore additional support may be needed.

CONCLUSION

RDCTs will continue to face challenges in implementing novel technologies. However, maximising patient and partner involvement, reducing participant and staff burden, and simplifying how participants and staff interact with the RDCT may facilitate their implementation.