Putting the "good" into Good Clinical Practice

"How do I keep this live in my mind?" Allied Health Professionals' perspectives of barriers and enablers to implementing good clinical practice principles in research: a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Allied health professionals (AHPs) engaged in research are expected to comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles to protect participant safety and wellbeing and enhance data integrity. Currently, few studies have explored health professionals' perceptions of implementing and adhering to GCP principles in research with none of these including AHPs. Such knowledge is vital to guide future interventions to increase adherence to GCP principles. This study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers AHPs experience when applying GCP principles to research conduct in a public hospital and health service, as well as their perceived support needs.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative descriptive study approach guided by behaviour change theory. AHPs currently undertaking ethically approved research within a public health service in Queensland, Australia were interviewed to explore barriers and enablers to adherence to GCP principles and support needs, with interview questions guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF was chosen as it allows for a systematic understanding of factors influencing implementation of a specific behaviour (i.e., GCP implementation) and can be used to inform tailored interventions.

RESULTS

Ten AHPs across six professions were interviewed. Participants identified both enablers and barriers to implementing GCP across nine domains of the TDF and enablers across three additional domains. Examples of enablers included strong beliefs about the importance of GCP in increasing research rigour and participant safety (i.e. from TDF - beliefs about consequences); applying clinical skills and personal attributes when implementing GCP (i.e., skills), available training and support (i.e., environmental context and resources); and alignment with their moral sense to 'do the right thing' (i.e., professional identity). Barriers to GCP implementation were generally less commonly reported but included reduced time to implement GCP and a sense of 'red tape' (i.e., environmental context and resources), a lack of knowledge of GCP principles (i.e., knowledge) and a fear of making mistakes (i.e., emotions), and varying relevance to individual projects (i.e., knowledge). Suggestions for support were identified beyond training, such as physical resources (e.g., prescriptive checklists, templates and scripts), additional time, and regular one-on-one mentoring support.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that while clinicians recognise the importance of GCP and want to implement it, they report barriers to its practical implementation. GCP training alone is unlikely to address these barriers to implementing GCP in daily practice. Findings suggest that GCP training may be more useful to AHPs when it is tailored to the allied heath context and supplemented with additional supports including check-ups from experienced researchers and access to prescriptive resources. Future research however is needed to investigate the effectiveness of such strategies.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of two Voriconazole formulations after intravenous infusion in two doses in healthy Chinese subjects

BACKGROUND

Voriconazole is a second-generation triazole that is used to prevent and treat invasive fungal infections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic equivalency of a test formulation and reference formulation (Vfend®) of Voriconazole.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-treatment, two-sequence, two-cycle, crossover phase I trial. The 48 subjects were equally divided into 4 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg groups. Within each group, the subjects were randomized 1:1 to the test or reference formulation.. After a 7-day washout period, crossover formulations were administered. The blood samples were collected at 0.5, 1.0, 1.33,1.42,1.5, 1.75, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 12.0, 24.0, 36.0, 48.0 h later in the 4 mg/kg group, while at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, 2.08, 2.17, 2.33, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 12.0, 24.0, 36.0, 48.0 h later in the 6 mg/kg group. The plasma concentrations of Voriconazole were determined by Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The safety of the drug was evaluated.

RESULTS

The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratio of geometric means (GMRs) of C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-∞ in both 4 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg groups were within the prespecified bioequivalence limits between 80 ~ 125%. In the 4 mg/kg groups, 24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean C_max was (2.552 ± 0.448) μg/mL, AUC_0-t was (11.875 ± 7.157) h*μg/mL and AUC_0-∞ was (12.835 ± 9.813) h*μg/mL after a single dose of 4 mg/kg test formulation. The mean C_max was (2.615 ± 0.464) μg/mL, AUC_0-t was (12.500 ± 7.257) h*μg/mL and AUC_0-∞ was (13.416 ± 9.485) h*μg/mL after a single dose of 4 mg/kg reference formulation. In the 6 mg/kg groups, 24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean C_max was (3.538 ± 0.691) μg/mL, AUC_0-t was (24.976 ± 12.364) h*μg/mL and AUC_0-∞ was (26.212 ± 14.057) h*μg/mL after a single dose of 6 mg/kg test formulation. The mean C_max was (3.504 ± 0.667) μg/mL AUC_0-t was (24.990 ± 12.455) h*μg/mL and AUC_0-∞ was (26.160 ± 13.996) h*μg/mL after a single dose of 6 mg/kg reference formulation. Serious adverse event (SAE) was not observed.

CONCLUSION

In both 4 mg/kg group and 6 mg/kg group, equivalent pharmacokinetic characteristics that satisfied the criteria of bioequivalence for both test and reference formulations of Voriconazole.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05330000 (15/04/2022).

Consumer perspectives on simplified, layered consent for a low risk, but complex pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

For decades, the research community has called for participant information sheets/consent forms (PICFs) to be improved. Recommendations include simplifying content, reducing length, presenting information in layers and using multimedia. However, there are relatively few studies that have evaluated health consumers' (patients/carers) perspectives on the type and organisation of information, and the level of detail to be included in a PICF to optimise an informed decision to enter a trial. We aimed to elicit consumers' views on a layered approach to consent that provides the key information for decision-making in a short PICF (layer 1) with additional optional information that is accessed separately (layer 2). We also elicited consumers' views on the optimal content and layout of the layered consent materials for a large and complex Bayesian adaptive platform trial (the SNAP trial).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative multicentre study (4 focus groups and 2 semi-structured interviews) involving adolescent and adult survivors of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (22) and their carers (2). Interview transcripts were examined using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Consumers supported a layered approach to consent. The primary theme that emerged was the value of agency; the ability to exert some control over the amount of information read before the consent form is signed. Three other themes emerged; the need to prioritise participants' information needs; the importance of health literacy; the importance of information about a trial's benefits (over its risks) for decision-making and the interplay between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that consumers may challenge the one-size-fits-all approach currently applied to the development of PICFs in countries like Australia. Consumers supported a layered approach to consent that offers choice in the amount of information to be read before deciding whether to enter a trial. A 3-page PICF was considered sufficient for decision-making for the SNAP trial, provided that further information was available and accessible.

Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice

There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment.

This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.

Making the move to a learning healthcare system: has the pandemic brought us one step closer?

The notion of a learning healthcare system (LHS) is gaining traction to advance the objectives of high-quality patient-centred care. Within such a system, real-world data analysis, clinical research and health service research are core activities of the health system. To support the transition to an LHS, the Australian Government is implementing the National Clinical Trials Governance Framework, which extends health service accreditation standards to the conduct of clinical trials. This initiative encourages the integration of clinical trials into clinical care and the fostering of a culture of continuous improvement. However, implementing this initiative may prove challenging if health system leaders, clinicians and patients fail to recognise the value of clinical trials as a core health system activity. In this article we describe the enduring value of clinical trials and how the COVID-19 pandemic has enhanced their value by addressing longstanding deficiencies in the way trials are conducted. We also summarise best-practice advice on the embedding of trials into routine health care to enable their integration into health system operations. What is known about this topic? Many healthcare organisations seek to transition to a learning health system. In Australia, National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, which support the embedding of clinical trials as a core health system activity, have been implemented to catalyse the move. What does this paper add? Because there is little practical advice on how to embed clinical trials into health system operations, this paper summarises best practice. It also provides a rationale for embedding trials as a core health system activity, because the creation of a strong research culture is an important determinant of success. What are the implications for practitioners? The successful transition to an LHS would significantly advance the goals of value-based care.