Preparing clinicians to be site investigators in multicenter clinical trials: A training program at an academic medical center.

Clinical trials are essential in the translation of biomedical discoveries to new clinical interventions and therapeutics. Successful multisite clinical trials require qualified site investigators with an understanding of the full spectrum of processes and requirements from trial identification through closeout. New site investigators may be deterred by competing demands on their time, the complexity of administrative and regulatory processes for trial initiation and conduct, and limited access to experienced mentor networks. We established a Clinical Trialist Training Program (CTTP) and complimentary Clinical Trials Bootcamp at our institution to address these barriers and increase the number of local site investigators enabled to lead successful clinical trials. An initial cohort of four CTTP scholars received salary support with protected time, didactic training, assistance with study identification and start-up navigation, and quarterly progress meetings. By the end of the 12-month program, this initial cohort identified 33 new trials, utilized feasibility assessments, and reported being on target to sustain their protected time from new clinical trials. Bootcamp attendees demonstrated increased knowledge of resources, offices, and processes associated with clinical trial conduct. Our results support providing compensated protected time, training, and access to experienced clinical research professionals to enable clinicians to become successful site investigators.

The Trial Innovation Network Liaison Team: building a national clinical and translational community of practice.

In 2016, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to address barriers to efficient and informative multicenter trials. The TIN provides a national platform, working in partnership with 60+ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs across the country to support the design and conduct of successful multicenter trials. A dedicated Hub Liaison Team (HLT) was established within each CTSA to facilitate connection between the hubs and the newly launched Trial and Recruitment Innovation Centers. Each HLT serves as an expert intermediary, connecting CTSA Hub investigators with TIN support, and connecting TIN research teams with potential multicenter trial site investigators. The cross-consortium Liaison Team network was developed during the first TIN funding cycle, and it is now a mature national network at the cutting edge of team science in clinical and translational research. The CTSA-based HLT structures and the external network structure have been developed in collaborative and iterative ways, with methods for shared learning and continuous process improvement. In this paper, we review the structure, function, and development of the Liaison Team network, discuss lessons learned during the first TIN funding cycle, and outline a path toward further network maturity.

An integrated approach to improve clinical trial efficiency: Linking a clinical trial management system into the Research Integrated Network of Systems.

Low-accruing clinical trials delay translation of research breakthroughs into the clinic, expose participants to risk without providing meaningful clinical insight, increase the cost of therapies, and waste limited resources. By tracking patient accrual, Clinical and Translational Science Awards hubs can identify at-risk studies and provide them the support needed to reach recruitment goals and maintain financial solvency. However, tracking accrual has proved challenging because relevant patient- and protocol-level data often reside in siloed systems. To address this fragmentation, in September 2020 the South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, with an academic home at the Medical University of South Carolina, implemented a clinical trial management system (CTMS), with its access to patient-level data, and incorporated it into its Research Integrated Network of Systems (RINS), which links study-level data across disparate systems relevant to clinical research. Within the first year of CTMS implementation, 324 protocols were funneled through CTMS/RINS, with more than 2600 participants enrolled. Integrated data from CTMS/RINS have enabled near-real-time assessment of patient accrual and accelerated reimbursement from industry sponsors. For institutions with bioinformatics or programming capacity, the CTMS/RINS integration provides a powerful model for tracking and improving clinical trial efficiency, compliance, and cost-effectiveness.

Transplanting Sensitized Kidney Transplant Patients With Equivalent Outcomes Utilizing Stringent HLA Crossmatching.

OBJECIVES: Elevated panel reactive antibody levels have been traditionally associated with increased acute rejection rate and decreased long-term graft survival after kidney transplant. In this study, our objective was to determine patient and allograft outcomes in sensitized kidney transplant recipients with advanced HLA antibody detection and stringent protein sequence epitope analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a subanalysis of a prospective, risk-stratified randomized controlled trial that compared interleukin 2 receptor antagonist to rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction in 200 kidney transplant recipients, examining outcomes based on panel reactive antibody levels of < 20% (low) versus ≥ 20% (high, sensitized). The study was conducted between February 2009 and July 2011. All patients underwent solid-phase single antigen bead assays to detect HLA antibodies and stringent HLA epitope analyses with protein sequence alignment for virtual crossmatching. Delayed graft function, acute rejection rates, and graft loss were the main outcomes measured. RESULTS: Both the low (134 patients) and high (66 patients) panel reactive antibody level cohorts had equivalent induction and maintenance immunosuppression. Patients in the high-level group were more likely to be female (P < .001), African American (P < .001), and received a kidney from a deceased donor (P = .004). Acute rejection rates were similar between the low (rate of 8%) and high (rate of 9%) panel reactive antibody groups (P = .783). Delayed graft function, borderline rejection, graft loss, and death were not different between groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated delayed graft function to be the strongest predictor of acute rejection (odds ratio, 5.7; P = .005); panel reactive antibody level, as a continuous variable, had no significant correlation with acute rejection (C statistic, 0.48; P = .771). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate biologic matching with single antigen bead assays and stringent epitope analyses provided excellent outcomes in sensitized patients regardless of the induction therapy choice.

Prospective randomized controlled trial of rabbit antithymocyte globulin compared with IL-2 receptor antagonist induction therapy in kidney transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of induction with rabbit antithymocyte globulin (RATG) compared with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists in a racially diverse kidney transplant patient population under modern immunosuppression. BACKGROUND: The optimal induction therapy in patients at risk for rejection, particularly black recipients, in the modern era of immunosuppression with flow cytometry-based cross-matching is unclear. METHODS: This was a prospective, risk-stratified, randomized, single-center, open-label study of 200 consecutively enrolled patients in a large academic teaching center. Patients were randomized to receive either daclizumab or basiliximab versus RATG for induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified between groups to ensure equal numbers of black, retransplants, high panel reactive antibodies (PRAs) (>20%), and prolonged cold ischemic times (>24 hours) in each group. Primary outcome measure is treatment efficacy defined as the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection and estimated creatinine clearance. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Renal transplant recipients were included if they were adult (≥18 years old) and received an allograft from a deceased, living unrelated, or nonhuman leukocyte antigen identical living-related donor. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (n = 98 in the interleukin-2 receptor antagonists, and n = 102 in the RATG) were enrolled from February 2009 through July 2011. One-year acute rejection rates were low and similar between groups (10% in the interleukin-2 receptor antagonist group vs 6% in the RATG group; P = 0.30). Creatinine clearance was also similar between groups (interleukin-2 receptor antagonist group 56 ± 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2 vs RATG group 55 ± 22 mL/min per 1.73 m2; P = 0.73). Subanalysis of recipient race revealed that in blacks only RATG was protective against 6- and 12-month acute rejection, without an increased risk of infection. Induction did not affect rejection rates according to recipient calculated PRAs; however, RATG was associated with an increased risk of BK virus in low-PRA patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: RATG induction provides improved protection against early acute rejection in black renal transplant recipients, whereas sensitized patients do not seem to demonstrate a similar benefit from this therapy. This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00859131).