Mapping Strategies for Reaching Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations in Clinical Trials.

Importance: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, such as persons with low income and those with low educational attainment, are less likely to participate in clinical trials than those with higher earnings and higher educational attainment, despite the former being more likely to have chronic medical conditions. Ways to improve the representation of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients in clinical trials deserve attention. Objective: To examine whether current recruitment and enrollment strategies used by US clinical research sites appropriately include patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted between April and July 2023. An online survey was distributed among US clinical research sites to explore their use of these strategies and the types of patient sociodemographic and socioeconomic data they collect. The survey was distributed by 13 pharmaceutical companies and 1 clinical research organization. Eight targeted strategies known to increase the recruitment and retention of socioeconomically disadvantaged participants as well as 6 general strategies to recruit and retain clinical trial participants were identified. Data analysis was performed between August and September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of for-profit vs nonprofit or governmental sites that use recruitment and retention strategies, proportions that have partnerships with community organizations that target socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and the distribution of sociodemographic and socioeconomic data collected by sites about their patients. A χ2 test of independence was performed to assess the association between research site ownership type and levels of adoption of strategies. Results: A total of 492 responses were collected from 381 clinical research sites in the US (219 for-profit sites [57.5%] and 162 nonprofit or governmental sites [42.5%]). Overall, compared with nonprofit or governmental sites, for-profit sites reported higher use of strategies shown to increase the recruitment and retention of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including always or often providing after-hours visits (84 of 173 for-profit sites [48.6%]; 22 of 123 nonprofit or governmental sites [17.9%]) and offering financial compensation (135 of 162 for-profit sites [83.3%]; 60 of 123 nonprofit or governmental sites [48.8%]). Additionally, there was an association between research site ownership type and levels of adoption of these strategies; for example, for-profit sites were more likely to provide after-hours visits (χ2 = 30.33; P < .001) and offer financial compensation (χ2 = 49.35; P < .001). Only 7.2% of for-profit sites (12 of 167) and 13.0% of nonprofit or governmental sites (16 of 123) collected information on the patient's annual income. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, we found an association between a clinical research site's ownership type (for-profit vs nonprofit or governmental) and how often it used strategies to engage socioeconomically diverse populations in clinical research. Regardless of ownership type, most clinical research sites did not collect socioeconomic information from patients. Adoption of strategies to engage socioeconomically diverse populations, particularly by nonprofit or governmental sites, may help minimize barriers to participation for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Experience in Oncology Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols. RESULTS: Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.

New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance.

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) conducted a follow-up study in 2022 to assess trends in protocol amendment experiences and the impact amendments have had on clinical trial performance, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixteen pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations provided data on 950 protocols and 2188 amendments. The results show that, since 2015, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment in phases I-IV has increased substantially (from 57 to 76%) and the mean number of amendments per protocol has increased 60% to 3.3, up from 2.1. Phase I and III protocols saw the highest increases in the mean number of amendments implemented per protocol. A much higher percentage of amendments-77%-were deemed unavoidable with regulatory agency requests and changes to the study strategy as the top reasons cited for amending a protocol. The total average duration to implement an amendment has nearly tripled during the past decade. The time from identifying the need-to-amend to last oversight approval now takes an average of 260 days and the mean duration during which investigative sites operate with different versions of the clinical trial protocol spans 215 days. Protocols that implemented at least one amendment were more effective at increasing patient screening volume and reducing the actual number of patients enrolled relative to plan. Lastly, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment and mean number of amendments was significantly higher for protocols conducted during the pandemic.

New Benchmarks on Demographic Disparities in Pivotal Trials Supporting FDA-Approved Drugs and Biologics.

BACKGROUND: A lack of diversity and representation in clinical trials is an established issue in drug development, and the COVID-19 pandemic increased awareness of the problem among the general public. This awareness has led to increased pressure on drug development sponsors, as well as additional attention and regulation from federal bodies, to improve the diversity of clinical trials. This study updates existing baselines regarding demographic disparities, as well as detecting early signs that the situation may be starting to improve. METHODS: Building on an existing dataset, this study collected and analyzed pivotal trial demographic data for drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2007 and 2021. Demographic data were collected from applications on the FDA website and clinicaltrials.gov, and compared to indication-specific demographic data when available, or US census estimates when they were not. Regression analyses were used to test for significant trends in reporting of demographic data and representation in pivotal trials, as well as the effect of representation on clinical trial duration and FDA review. RESULTS: Reporting of demographic data has improved significantly for all three demographic categories (sex, racial identity, and ethnic identity) over the observed time period (p < 0.0001). During this time period, overrepresentation of white participants has decreased significantly (p < 0.0001), and representation of Black participants has increased (p = 0.0003). Other racial and ethnic identities did not show significant trends. Representation of demographic subgroups was not significant predictors of trial duration except for the representation of Black participants, which was a negative correlation, indicating that as representation of Black participants increases, trial duration decreases (p = 0.0350).

Insights from a Multi-company Workshop to Apply a Patient Participation Burden Algorithm to Protocol Data.

BACKGROUND: Utilizing a participation burden algorithm developed in a previous study, Tufts CSDD, in collaboration with ZS, led a workshop among 8 pharmaceutical companies to validate the methodology of benchmarking the participation burden of a set of retrospective protocols and comparing these data to a prospective protocol design. METHODS: Eight participating companies collected data for 66 retrospective protocols and participation burden scores were calculated for each. Data from one prospective protocol was provided and prospective burden scores were compared to mean retrospective protocol burden for each company. Participating companies provided feedback on data collection process and final reports. RESULTS: Comparisons between retrospective and prospective burden scores revealed higher comparative burden in lab and blood procedures. Companies were able to gather most requested data, but some variables hypothesized to affect burden were not available to sponsors. Time constraints were reported as a challenge throughout the data collection process. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback indicated the need for establishing a larger database to enable comparisons between protocols with the same therapeutic area and indication. Investigating the impact of standard of care burden by indication on overall participation burden and encouraging sponsors to collect more accurate data contributing to participation burden at the site level are also important takeaways from this exercise.

Global Investigative Site Personnel Diversity and Its Relationship with Study Participant Diversity.

BACKGROUND: There is little to no empirical data on the race and ethnicity of the global community of professionals conducting clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and little empirical evidence on the relationship between the race and ethnicity of investigative site personnel and the overall and corresponding diversity of participants enrolled. METHODS: A global online survey conducted in mid-2021 gathered responses from 3462 clinical research professionals representing approximately 3300 distinct investigative sites. RESULTS: Worldwide, including all research settings, the majority (64%) of investigative site personnel are White, 20% are LatinX, 6% are Black, 7% are Asian and 3% are other races and ethnicities (e.g., indigenous peoples, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, etc.). The representation of non-white site personnel is significantly higher in North America and Rest of World (ROW) compared to Europe. The highest levels of personnel diversity are found in private community-based practices, investigative sites and site networks. A significant correlation (p < 0.001) was found between site personnel diversity and patient enrollment diversity worldwide. As the mix of site personnel by race and ethnicity increases, the diversity of patients enrolled-except for Asian patients in sites outside of North America-also increases. A significant relationship was also found between the proportion of a given race or ethnicity of investigative site personnel and the corresponding race and ethnicity of patients enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunity exists to address under-representation in clinical trials through identifying, hiring and supporting investigative site personnel to best reflect the patient communities that they serve.

Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Following up on a study from 2019, Tufts CSDD collected and analyzed data on demographic disparities and representation in pivotal trials supporting the marketing authorization of novel drugs and biologics approved in Europe between 2007 and 2019. METHODS: Data were collected from products' EPAR, the EUDRACT database, and other publicly available sources, and compared to indication-specific demographic data or a census estimate. In total, data were collected on 446 drugs and 943 pivotal trials. RESULTS: Results indicated that gender demographic data were only reported for 80.7% of pivotal trials, and that racial and ethnicity demographic data were reported less often (64.1% and 29.9% of pivotal trials, respectively). Results also indicated that non-white racial identities were under-represented by more than 20% in nearly half or more of pivotal trials. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines encouraging the reporting of patient demographic data are insufficient and availability of the data is problematic. The available data suggest that under-representation in pivotal trials is widespread.