Acupuncture for hot flashes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, a coordinated multinational study: Rationale and design of the study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been reported to reduce hot flashes in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant hormonal therapy. Although hot flashes are common, the prevalence varies among cultures, races, and ethnicities; the efficacy of acupuncture across cultures has not been investigated. METHODS: This is a coordinated multinational study, including three parallel randomized trials with a planned analysis of individual patient data, to test the effectiveness of acupuncture on hot flash-related symptoms in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Using a standardized acupuncture protocol (total across all three studies of n = 80) versus usual care (total n = 80), symptoms are assessed using changes in the Endocrine Symptom Subscale of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptoms. Secondary outcomes include hot flash severity, quality of life, and sleep quality. Differences in response to acupuncture between participants in the three countries will also be explored. DISCUSSION: Here we describe the design of a protocol for a coordinated multinational study, with attention to the complex considerations in developing a multinational research effort testing a non-pharmacologic intervention. This protocol and approach provide guidance for future efforts to evaluate and test non-pharmacologic interventions across multinational populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00797732, registered on December 21, 2018), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100045888), and The Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) of Korea (Registration number: KCT0003618).

Developing a consensus-driven, plain-language clinical research glossary for study participants and the clinical research community.

Clinical research is complex, and research-related terms can be challenging to understand. Clear, supportive communication with patients, potential study participants, and their caregivers must be prioritized by healthcare providers as well as investigators and their research teams. In clinical research, health literacy best practices support the ethical tenets of respect, justice, and beneficence. Plain language advances the understanding of informed consent documents, as well as comprehension of educational information, recruitment materials, study instructions, and study results summaries, among others. Further, a more collaborative research partnership is fostered when study participants are given understandable materials, while a lack of understanding can delay accrual and decrease adherence. We launched a pilot initiative to develop a consensus-driven, plain language clinical research glossary to promote clarity, consistency, and transparency across clinical research stakeholder groups. The resulting resource, described herein, is intended to be used widely to support a greater understanding of clinical research and empower study participants. Considerations for expansion are also discussed.

Developing and implementing a self-monitoring toolkit for a coordinated multinational randomized acupuncture trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, investigators from China, South Korea and the United States of America initiated a coordinated multinational trial. The trial included three parallel randomized studies with a planned pooled analysis of individual patient data, to test the effectiveness of acupuncture on hot flash-related symptoms in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the study's approach, there was no central coordinating center or data monitoring committee for the study, so a site performance self-monitoring toolkit was developed and implemented to support study teams in collecting and maintaining high-quality regulatory information, and consistent review of study data and documentation. METHODS: The site performance self-monitoring toolkit was created based on best practices related to post-approval quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) procedures that support data quality. The toolkit included: (1) a binder of essential study management documents and related monitoring logs for sites to complete and maintain (herein called regulator binder), (2) a study start-up checklist, (3) a self-assessment study conduct and oversight checklist to be completed regularly, and (4) a study close-out checklist. In addition, a process of regular virtual meetings to discuss documentation progress coupled with periodic external remote review of completed logs and checklists provided accountability checks. RESULTS: Over the course of the study, the sites in China and South Korea completed the entirety of the site performance self-monitoring toolkit, and successfully submitted their completed materials for review. The process of implementing a self-monitoring toolkit in a multinational integrative medicine study is described qualitatively. Periodic external review of the completed toolkit materials revealed categories of findings. Written follow-up reports were provided to sites and discussion of the documents occurred via separate virtual meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Site study team self-monitoring provides a feasible, consistent, and effective way to review the collection and maintenance of data and regulatory documentation for quality assessment in minimal risk clinical research studies and can augment formal study monitoring activities in higher risk studies. Iterative feedback and support appeared to drive a disciplined approach to maintaining regulatory document compliance and helped sustain investigator and study team engagement in the process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03783546 (21/12/2018).

Research coordinator networks and support models among academic health centers in the CTSA consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Research coordinators (RCs) are vital to the clinical research enterprise, ensuring research is conducted ethically, results are scientifically sound and human research subjects are protected. Given the absence of a prior systematic inquiry, we sought to understand the ways in which Clinical & Translational Science Award-funded academic health centers support RCs. METHODS: Our survey asked questions about existing coordinator networks and where none existed, collected data on the characterization of resources and services provided to support RCs (outside of salary). RESULTS: Findings show 4 mechanisms support RCs: identification of the workforce, professionalization of the position, dissemination of information, and offering of services. CONCLUSION: An academic health center that wishes to deliver research training and services to their RC workforce will need identification and communication structures in place before supportive activities can be effectively implemented.

Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies 1q22 as a susceptibility locus for intracerebral hemorrhage.

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is the stroke subtype with the worst prognosis and has no established acute treatment. ICH is classified as lobar or nonlobar based on the location of ruptured blood vessels within the brain. These different locations also signal different underlying vascular pathologies. Heritability estimates indicate a substantial genetic contribution to risk of ICH in both locations. We report a genome-wide association study of this condition that meta-analyzed data from six studies that enrolled individuals of European ancestry. Case subjects were ascertained by neurologists blinded to genotype data and classified as lobar or nonlobar based on brain computed tomography. ICH-free control subjects were sampled from ambulatory clinics or random digit dialing. Replication of signals identified in the discovery cohort with p < 1 × 10(-6) was pursued in an independent multiethnic sample utilizing both direct and genome-wide genotyping. The discovery phase included a case cohort of 1,545 individuals (664 lobar and 881 nonlobar cases) and a control cohort of 1,481 individuals and identified two susceptibility loci: for lobar ICH, chromosomal region 12q21.1 (rs11179580, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, p = 7.0 × 10(-8)); and for nonlobar ICH, chromosomal region 1q22 (rs2984613, OR = 1.44, p = 1.6 × 10(-8)). The replication included a case cohort of 1,681 individuals (484 lobar and 1,194 nonlobar cases) and a control cohort of 2,261 individuals and corroborated the association for 1q22 (p = 6.5 × 10(-4); meta-analysis p = 2.2 × 10(-10)) but not for 12q21.1 (p = 0.55; meta-analysis p = 2.6 × 10(-5)). These results demonstrate biological heterogeneity across ICH subtypes and highlight the importance of ascertaining ICH cases accordingly.