RESUMO
Background and Objectives: Representation of persons from marginalized racial and ethnic groups in Parkinson disease (PD) trials has been low, limiting the generalizability of therapeutic options for individuals with PD. Two large phase 3 randomized clinical trials sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3, screened participants from overlapping Parkinson Study Group clinical sites under similar eligibility criteria but differed in participation by underrepresented minorities. The goal of this research is to compare recruitment strategies of PD participants belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Methods: A total of 998 participants with identified race and ethnicity consented to STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3 from 86 clinical sites. Demographics, clinical trial characteristics, and recruitment strategies were compared. NINDS imposed a minority recruitment mandate on STEADY-PD III but not SURE-PD3. Results: Ten percent of participants who consented to STEADY-PD III self-identified as belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups compared to 6.5% in SURE-PD3 (difference = 3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-7.5%, p value = 0.034). This difference persisted after screening (10.1% of patients in STEADY-PD III vs 5.4% in SURE-PD 3, difference = 4.7%, 95% CI 0.6%-8.8%, p value = 0.038). Discussion: Although both trials targeted similar participants, STEADY-PD III was able to consent and recruit a higher percentage of patients from racial and ethnic marginalized groups. Possible reasons include differential incentives for achieving minority recruitment goals. Trial Registration Information: This study used data from The Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine for Parkinson Disease (STEADY-PD III; NCT02168842) and the Study of Urate Elevation in Parkinson's Disease (SURE-PD3; NCT02642393).
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease (PD) research is hampered by slow, inefficient recruitment and burdensome in-person assessments that may be challenging to conduct in a world affected by COVID-19. Fox Insight is an ongoing prospective clinical research study that enables individuals to participate in clinical research from their own homes by completing online questionnaires. To date, over 45,000 participants with and without PD have enrolled. We sought to validate self-reported PD diagnosis in the Fox Insight cohort, assess the validity of other self-reported health information, and evaluate the willingness of participants to participate in video-based research studies. METHODS: Individuals with and without self-reported PD enrolled in Fox Insight were invited to participate in this virtual research study. Participants completed online questionnaires and two virtual visits, during which we conducted standard cognitive and motor assessments. A movement disorder expert determined the most likely diagnosis, which was compared to self-reported diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 203 participants from 40 U.S. states, 159 with remote clinician-determined PD and 44 without, completed the study (59% male, mean (SD) age 65.7 (9.8)). Level of agreement between self-reported PD diagnosis in Fox Insight and clinician-determined diagnosis was very good ((kappa = 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Overall, 97.9% of participants were satisfied with the study, 98.5% were willing to participate in a future observational study with virtual visits, and 76.1% were willing to participate in an interventional trial with virtual visits. CONCLUSION: Among the Fox Insight cohort, self-reported diagnosis is accurate and interest in virtual research studies is high.