Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance: Facilitating the inclusion of historically underrepresented people in oncology and ophthalmology clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance is composed of clinical research centers that partner with Genentech, a biotechnology company, to advance the representation of diverse patient populations in its oncology and ophthalmology clinical trials, test recruitment, and retention approaches and establish best practices to leverage across the industry to achieve health equity. METHODS: Through a data-driven selection process, Genentech identified 6 oncology and 3 ophthalmology partners that focus on reaching historically underrepresented patients in clinical trials and worked collaboratively to share knowledge and explore original ways of increasing clinical study access for every patient, including sites co-creation of a Protocol Entry Criteria Guideline with inclusion principles. RESULTS: For patients, three publicly available educational videos about clinical trials were created in multiple languages. The AIR Site Alliance has also defined invoiceable services for sites to enhance patient support; this has been built into the new study budget templates for sustainability. For healthcare professionals (HCPs), the first-of-its-kind AIR Educational Program was developed to focus on identifying and addressing bias and engaging historically underrepresented patient populations in trials. The sites also co-created videos for HCPs and patients on why advancing inclusive research matters. Over 16 regional health equity symposia have been delivered for patients, HCPs, and community leaders. CONCLUSIONS: This AIR Site Alliance is a model for other site alliances, including Kenya, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Such alliances will build a robust and sustainable research ecosystem that includes diverse patient groups and encourages change across the healthcare system.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Historical Benchmarks for Quality Tolerance Limits Parameters in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use updated its efficacy guideline for good clinical practice and introduced quality tolerance limits (QTLs) as a quality control in clinical trials. Previously, TransCelerate proposed a framework for QTL implementation and parameters. Historical data can be important in helping to determine QTL thresholds in new clinical trials. METHODS: This article presents results of historical data analyses for the previously proposed parameters based on data from 294 clinical trials from seven TransCelerate member companies. The differences across therapeutic areas were assessed by comparing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and oncology trials using a separate dataset provided by Medidata. RESULTS: TransCelerate member companies provided historical data on 11 QTL parameters with data sufficient for analysis for parameters. The distribution of values was similar for most parameters with a relatively small number of outlying trials with high parameter values. Medidata provided values for three parameters in a total of 45 AD and oncology trials with no obvious differences between the therapeutic areas. CONCLUSION: Historical parameter values can provide helpful benchmark information for quality control activities in future trials.

Quality Tolerance Limits: Framework for Successful Implementation in Clinical Development.

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E6(R2) (International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised guideline: integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 2016. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf . Accessed 5 Dec 2019) introduced Quality Tolerance Limits (QTLs) to the industry, and in doing so, modernized quality control for clinical trials. QTLs provide measured feedback on clinical trial parameters previously only used by statistical and clinical functions to track trial progress toward endpoints. Elevating these measures as part of the Quality Management System (QMS) provides greater visibility across clinical trial functions and the enterprise as well as to measures that are important indicators of the state of participant protection and reliability of trial results. In support of this new requirement, TransCelerate developed a framework to guide industry sponsors and their agents in implementing QTLs. This QTL Framework is intended to aid industry's ability to improve the quality of clinical research through the implementation of QTLs in a way that helps protect trial participants and reliability of trial results while meeting Health Authority (HA) expectations. The framework is intended to maximize efficiency and minimize confusion in the implementation of QTLs. The framework includes proposed approaches for implementation of QTLs for a clinical trial as defined in Section 5.0.4 and 5.0.7 of ICH E6(R2) (International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised guideline: integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 2016. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf . Accessed 5 Dec 2019) and considerations for setting thresholds.