Assessing Participation Burden in Clinical Trials: Introducing the Patient Friction Coefficient

Self-regulation training for people with knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a feasibility randomised control trial (MiNT trial)

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain condition resulting in disability, reduced quality of life, and high societal costs. Pain associated with knee OA is linked to increased sensitivity in sensory, cognitive, and emotional areas of the brain. Self-regulation training targeting brain functioning related to pain experience could reduce pain and its associated disability. Self-regulatory treatments such as mindfulness meditation (MM) and electroencephalography neurofeedback (EEG-NF) training improve clinical outcomes in people with knee OA. A feasibility clinical trial can address factors that could inform the design of the full trial investigating the effectiveness of self-regulation training programmes in people with knee OA. This clinical trial will evaluate the feasibility, safety, acceptability, experience and perceptions of the self-regulatory training programmes.

Methods

The proposed feasibility trial is based on a double-blind (outcome assessor and investigators), three-arm (MM usual care, EEG-NF + usual care and usual care control group) randomised controlled parallel clinical trial. Participants with knee OA will be recruited from the community and healthcare practices. A research assistant (RA) will administer both interventions (20-min sessions, four sessions each week, and 12 sessions over three successive weeks). Feasibility measures (participant recruitment rate, adherence to interventions, retention rate), safety, and acceptability of interventions will be recorded. An RA blinded to the group allocation will record secondary outcomes at baseline, immediately post-intervention (4th week), and 3 months post-intervention. The quantitative outcome measures will be descriptively summarised. The qualitative interviews will evaluate the participants' experiences and perceptions regarding various aspects of the trial, which includes identifying the barriers and facilitators in participating in the trial, evaluating their opinions on the research procedures, such as their preferences for the study site, and determining the level of acceptability of the interventions as potential clinical treatments for managing knee OA. Māori participant perceptions of how assessment and training practices could be acceptable to a Māori worldview will be explored. The interviews will be audio-recorded and analysed thematically.

Discussion

This trial will provide evidence on the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of the MM and EEG-NF training in people with knee OA, thus informing the design of a full randomised clinical control trial.

Pilot Trial Characteristics, Postpilot Design Modifications, and Feasibility of Full-Scale Trials

Importance

Pilot trials often lead to study design changes in subsequent full-scale trials. Yet, it remains unclear whether these modifications improve the feasibility of the larger trial.

Objective

To compare feasibility estimates between pilot and full-scale trials and identify pilot trial characteristics and modifications associated with equivalent or improved feasibility in the full-scale trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used pilot trials published between January 2005 and December 2018 and their corresponding full-scale trials. PubMed was searched for trials on February 19, 2022.

Exposures

Pilot trial characteristics and postpilot trial design modifications.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was difference in 3 feasibility parameters: successful screening probability, enrollment rate, and retention probability. These metrics were defined as equivalent or improved if the full-scale trial's estimate was within or exceeding 10% of the pilot trial's estimate.

Results

A total of 249 pairs of pilot and full-scale trials were analyzed, with 43%, 77%, and 82% of full-scale trials having equivalent or improved successful screening probabilities, enrollment rates, and retention probabilities, respectively. When pilot trials used feasibility progression criteria (relative risk [RR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-5.97) and maintained masking for participants (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.04-4.33) or health care practitioners (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.03-3.97) consistent with the full-scale trial, the likelihood of achieving equivalent or improved screening success in full-scale trials increased. Increasing study sites after the pilot was associated with higher likelihood of equivalent or improved enrollment rates (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Adding extra content to the intervention (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98), changing to active control (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99), administrating the control treatment more frequently (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-0.93), different follow-up lengths (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97), and more follow-up visits (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) were associated with lower likelihood of equivalent or improved retention probability in the full-scale trial.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study of pilot and full-scale trial pairs, pilot trial characteristics and postpilot modifications had varying associations with full-scale trial's feasibility. If full-scale trials planned for masking, it was desirable to use it in the pilot. Modifications increasing participant burden might decrease full-scale trial feasibility. Trialists and funders should consider both pilot trial data and proposed design changes when assessing full-scale trials.

Impact of caregivers' psychological and caregiving status on recruitment, conversion, and retention in stem cell therapy trials for cerebral palsy: A prospective survey analysis

AIM

To examine specific correlates that may affect retention outcomes of neural stem cell therapy trials in families screened for cerebral palsy.

DESIGN

A prospective correlational study.

METHODS

Primary caregivers completed surveys of psychological resilience, care burden and family caregiver tasks. The overall data and differences between groups were analysed and compared.

RESULTS

Resilience was negatively correlated with the care ability and closely related to the monthly household income and educational level of the caregivers. Factors affecting the final retention rate included the type of disease, number of combined disorders, monthly household income, primary caregivers' education level and resilience.

CONCLUSION

Economic level, literacy and psychological status may affect trial retention. These findings can provide tips for preparing for subsequent screening, identification and intervention in stem cell clinical trials.

IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The study results may provide nursing care tips to make recruitment more efficient, reduce trial costs, support patient-centredness and accelerate trial progress.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The target population involves the primary caregivers of children living with cerebral palsy. However, neither patients nor the public contributed to the design or conduct of the study, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or preparation of the manuscript.

Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from a patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The collection of PROs in routine practice can facilitate monitoring of patient symptoms; identification of unmet needs; prioritisation and/or tailoring of treatment to the needs of individual patients and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. However, respondent burden needs to be carefully considered and addressed to avoid high rates of missing data and poor reporting of PRO results, which may lead to poor quality data for regulatory decision making and/or clinical care.

The collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may capture patients’ assessments of their health status. Here authors highlight PRO-specific issues that should be considered to minimise respondent burden in clinical trials and routine care.

Enhancing the Measure of Participation Burden in Protocol Design to Incorporate Logistics, Lifestyle, and Demographic Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Growing interest in improving patient participation convenience and the feasible execution of clinical trials has increased demand for new approaches to leverage patient input in the protocol design process.

METHODS

This study builds on prior work conducted by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development in collaboration with ZS. A comprehensive participant burden algorithm based on protocol procedures, participation requirements and lifestyle preferences was developed and tested. Clinical trial preferences and perceptions from 3002 global patients were analyzed to inform and derive the algorithm. It was next tested against a convenience sample of 266 completed protocols. Descriptive statistics, significance tests, and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Mean participant burden scores were highly associated with, and predictive (p < 0.01) of, screen failure rates, overall clinical trial duration and the number of substantial protocol amendments; and predictive (p < 0.05) of protocol treatment duration. Of 11 subgroups assessed, those that most influenced the algorithm and drove higher overall burden scores included disease condition, caregiver reliance, race, prior experience as a clinical trial participant and participant age. Geographic area and participant sex showed only minimal influence.

CONCLUSION

This study presents advancement and refinement in measuring participation burden that will assist drug development teams and protocol authors in retrospectively understanding clinical trial performance outcomes and in prospectively informing protocol design decisions.

Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the importance of clinical trials for finding a safe and effective vaccine to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Although communication about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy were challenges long before COVID-19, the twin facts of a pandemic and an "infodemic" of health information, misinformation, and disinformation have raised new challenges for vaccine-related communication and decision-making. The goal of this commentary is to highlight strategies to improve communication and decision-making for adults considering participation in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. First, I present a general conceptual model for clinical trial participation that can be applied to various vaccine and other clinical trial contexts. Next, I introduce the ASK (Assume, Seek, Know) approach for enhancing clinical trial participation: (1) assume that all patients will want to know their options, (2) seek the counsel of stakeholders, and (3) know your numbers. The ideas presented in this commentary are intended to enhance vaccine-specific clinical trial communication, decision-making, and literacy, while dually offering strategies and resources that may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake over time.