Acupuncture for hot flashes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from parallel randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Hot flashes are a common side effect of endocrine therapy (ET) that contribute to poor quality of life and decreased treatment adherence. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer wo were receiving ET and experiencing hot flashes were enrolled through three parallel, randomized trials conducted in the United States, China, and South Korea. Participants were randomized to either immediate acupuncture (IA) or delayed acupuncture control (DAC). IA participants received 20 acupuncture sessions over 10 weeks, whereas DAC participants received usual care, then crossed over to acupuncture with a reduced intensity. The primary end point was a change in score on the endocrine symptom subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Endocrine Symptoms between baseline and week 10. Secondary end points included the hot flash score and the FACT-Breast score. A planned pooled analysis of individual patient data was performed using longitudinal mixed models. RESULTS: In total, 158 women with stage 0-III breast cancer were randomized (United States, n = 78; China, n = 40; South Korea, n = 40). At week 10, IA participants reported statistically significant improvements in the endocrine symptom subscale score (mean change ± standard error: 5.1 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 1.0; p = .0003), the hot flash score (-5.3 ± 0.9 vs. -1.4 ± 0.9; p < .003), and the FACT-Breast total score (8.0 ± 1.6 vs. -0.01 ± 1.6; p = .0005) compared with DAC participants. The effect of the acupuncture intervention differed by site (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture led to statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in hot flashes, endocrine symptoms, and breast cancer-specific quality of life in women undergoing ET for breast cancer in the United States, China, and South Korea.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Enhancing diversity of clinical trial populations in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Demographic characteristics, social determinants of health (SDoH), health inequities, and health disparities substantially influence the general and disease-specific health outcomes of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Participants in clinical trials do not represent all people with MS treated in practice. OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for enhancing diversity and inclusion in clinical trials in MS. METHODS: We held an international workshop under the Auspices of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS (the "Committee") to develop recommendations regarding diversity and inclusivity of participants of clinical trials in MS. Workshop attendees included members of the Committee as well as external participants. External participants were selected based on expertise in trials, SDoH, health equity and regulatory science, and diversity with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, and geography. RESULTS: Recommendations include use of diversity plans, community engagement and education, cultural competency training, biologically justified rather than templated eligibility criteria, adaptive designs that allow broadening of eligibility criteria over the course of a trial, and logistical and practical adjustments to reduce study participant burden. Investigators should report demographic and SDoH characteristics of participants. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide sponsors and investigators with methods of improving diversity and inclusivity of clinical trial populations in MS.

Establishing a global regulatory floor for children's decisions about participation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Enrolling children in clinical trials typically requires parental or guardian permission and, when appropriate, child assent. Aligning requirements across jurisdictions would facilitate multisite pediatric trials. Guidance from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is the best candidate for a global standard but would benefit from additional specification. METHODS: Ethical analysis of ICH guidance for permission and assent for pediatric trials, with recommendations for clarification. RESULTS: ICH guidance regarding permission and assent would be enhanced by additional detail in the following areas: (1) what information should be provided to parents, guardians, and children considering a trial, and how that information should be provided; (2) the definition of "assent," the criteria for when assent should be required, and the need to include children in discussions even when assent is not mandated; (3) criteria for requiring children's signatures indicating agreement; (4) greater specificity regarding children's right to decline or withdraw; and (5) clarification of when children's wish to decline or withdraw from participation may be overridden and of what the overriding process should entail. CONCLUSION: ICH guidance provides a global standard for decision making regarding children's participation in trials. Several clarifications would facilitate the conduct of multinational pediatric research. IMPACT: Enrolling children in clinical trials requires the permission of a parent/guardian ± the assent of the minor. Differing global regulatory requirements for enrolling children complicate the conduct of multicenter and multinational trials. The authors identify points of ambiguity and/or contradiction in the International Council for Harmonization guidelines and offer recommendations for a common ethical platform for conducting global pediatric research.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: A number of prior studies have demonstrated that research participants with limited English proficiency in the United States are routinely excluded from clinical trial participation. Systematic exclusion through study eligibility criteria that require trial participants to be able to speak, read, and/or understand English affects access to clinical trials and scientific generalizability. We sought to establish the frequency with which English language proficiency is required and, conversely, when non-English languages are affirmatively accommodated in US interventional clinical trials for adult populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the advanced search function on ClinicalTrials.gov specifying interventional studies for adults with at least 1 site in the US. In addition, we used these search criteria to find studies with an available posted protocol. A computer program was written to search for evidence of English or Spanish language requirements, or the posted protocol, when available, was manually read for these language requirements. Of the 14,367 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2019 and 1 December 2020 that met baseline search criteria, 18.98% (95% CI 18.34%-19.62%; n = 2,727) required the ability to read, speak, and/or understand English, and 2.71% (95% CI 2.45%-2.98%; n = 390) specifically mentioned accommodation of translation to another language. The remaining trials in this analysis and the following sub-analyses did not mention English language requirements or accommodation of languages other than English. Of 2,585 federally funded clinical trials, 28.86% (95% CI 27.11%-30.61%; n = 746) required English language proficiency and 4.68% (95% CI 3.87%-5.50%; n = 121) specified accommodation of other languages; of the 5,286 industry-funded trials, 5.30% (95% CI 4.69%-5.90%; n = 280) required English and 0.49% (95% CI 0.30%-0.69%; n = 26) accommodated other languages. Trials related to infectious disease were less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (10.07% versus 18.98%; relative risk [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI 0.44-0.64; p < 0.001). Trials related to COVID-19 were also less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (8.18% versus 18.98%; RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.33-0.56; p < 0.001). Trials with a posted protocol (n = 366) were more likely than all registered clinical trials to specify an English requirement (36.89% versus 18.98%; RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.69-2.23; p < 0.001). A separate analysis of studies with posted protocols in 4 therapeutic areas (depression, diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer) demonstrated that clinical trials related to depression were the most likely to require English (52.24%; 95% CI 40.28%-64.20%). One limitation of this study is that the computer program only searched for the terms "English" and "Spanish" and may have missed evidence of other language accommodations. Another limitation is that we did not differentiate between requirements to read English, speak English, understand English, and be a native English speaker; we grouped these requirements together in the category of English language requirements. CONCLUSIONS: A meaningful percentage of US interventional clinical trials for adults exclude individuals who cannot read, speak, and/or understand English, or are not native English speakers. To advance more inclusive and generalizable research, funders, sponsors, institutions, investigators, institutional review boards, and others should prioritize translating study materials and eliminate language requirements unless justified either scientifically or ethically.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial.

BACKGROUND: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Navigating the ethics of remote research data collection.

COVID-19 has accelerated broad trends already in place toward remote research data collection and monitoring. This move implicates novel ethical and regulatory challenges which have not yet received due attention. Existing work is preliminary and does not seek to identify or grapple with the issues in a rigorous and sophisticated way. Here, we provide a framework for identifying and addressing challenges that we believe can help the research community realize the benefits of remote technologies while preserving ethical ideals and public trust. We organize issues into several distinct categories and provide points to consider in a table that can help facilitate ethical design and review of research studies using remote health instruments.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation.

There has been significant analysis of the ethical and regulatory issues involved with paying research participants, but less attention has been focused specifically on paying economically vulnerable individuals and the unique challenges it may present. This is important, as individuals of lower socio-economic standing are present in all disease groups and study populations. Moreover, clinical research is often conducted in economically under-developed locales, such as lower- or middle-income countries as well as impoverished locales of otherwise wealthy nations (such as, for example, rural Appalachia in the United States). Is it ethical to offer payment in such contexts? What are the ethical considerations relevant for determining payment rates and practices to individuals who are economically vulnerable? We offer an analysis of these issues, focusing on four unique areas of concern: (1) whether the risk of undue influence is greater for economically vulnerable individuals than for wealthier ones; (2) whether payment unacceptably raises the risk of 'unjust influence' or disproportionate representation of poor people in clinical research; (3) the positive reasons in favor of paying economically vulnerable people that stem from the ethical value of fairness; and (4) appropriate compensation rates for economically vulnerable populations. Our analysis supports the position that payment to economically vulnerable populations is ethically justified and indeed desirable when certain conditions are met.

Transitioning to the National Institutes of Health single institutional review board model: Piloting the use of the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance). METHODS: This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial-a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data. RESULTS: A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

Proposed Increases in Government Authority Over Research Misconduct Proceedings.

This Viewpoint discusses changes proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity that would shift control of research misconduct proceedings from institutional oversight to federal authority.

Assessment of a shortened informed consent form for pediatric research: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Inherent to clinical research is the informed consent process, with the informed consent form (ICF), a key component of human participant protections. We wished to examine whether a shortened and simplified ICF, accompanied by an appendix, improved participant understanding of a study compared with a conventional ICF. METHODS: A shortened ICF was developed from an existing conventional ICF for a neonatal study. Either the shortened or conventional ICF was randomly distributed to members of two parental advocacy groups. Participants answered survey questions about the form they received. RESULTS: Thirty-one out of forty-one (76%) parents in the shortened ICF and 28/41 (68%) in the conventional ICF group responded. Significantly more parents in the shortened ICF group found their form "short and to the point". Although they also stated that the shortened ICF did not provide enough information, there were no significant differences between groups measuring the understanding of key study components. CONCLUSION: A shortened ICF did not impact the understanding of the clinical trial. It will be important to compare the shortened and conventional forms in actual clinical trials.

Reimagining Health Data Exchange: An Application Programming Interface-Enabled Roadmap for India.

In February 2018, the Government of India announced a massive public health insurance scheme extending coverage to 500 million citizens, in effect making it the world's largest insurance program. To meet this target, the government will rely on technology to effectively scale services, monitor quality, and ensure accountability. While India has seen great strides in informational technology development and outsourcing, cellular phone penetration, cloud computing, and financial technology, the digital health ecosystem is in its nascent stages and has been waiting for a catalyst to seed the system. This National Health Protection Scheme is expected to provide just this impetus for widespread adoption. However, health data in India are mostly not digitized. In the few instances that they are, the data are not standardized, not interoperable, and not readily accessible to clinicians, researchers, or policymakers. While such barriers to easy health information exchange are hardly unique to India, the greenfield nature of India's digital health infrastructure presents an excellent opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of complex, restrictive, digital health systems that have evolved elsewhere. We propose here a federated, patient-centric, application programming interface (API)-enabled health information ecosystem that leverages India's near-universal mobile phone penetration, universal availability of unique ID systems, and evolving privacy and data protection laws. It builds on global best practices and promotes the adoption of human-centered design principles, data minimization, and open standard APIs. The recommendations are the result of 18 months of deliberations with multiple stakeholders in India and the United States, including from academia, industry, and government.

Disclosure of Possible Trial Termination to Participants of Interventional Clinical Trials.

This study evaluates a cross-section of interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with publicly available informed consent forms along with the proportion of trials that disclosed the possibility of trial termination.

When clinical trials compete: prioritising study recruitment.

It is not uncommon for multiple clinical trials at the same institution to recruit concurrently from the same patient population. When the relevant pool of patients is limited, as it often is, trials essentially compete for participants. There is evidence that such a competition is a predictor of low study accrual, with increased competition tied to increased recruitment shortfalls. But there is no consensus on what steps, if any, institutions should take to approach this issue. In this article, we argue that an institutional policy that prioritises some trials for recruitment ahead of others is ethically permissible and indeed prima facie preferable to alternative means of addressing recruitment competition. We motivate this view by appeal to the ethical importance of minimising the number of studies that begin but do not complete, thereby exposing their participants to unnecessary risks and burdens in the process. We then argue that a policy of prioritisation can be fair to relevant stakeholders, including participants, investigators and funders. Finally, by way of encouraging and helping to frame future debate, we propose some questions that would need to be addressed when identifying substantive ethical criteria for prioritising between studies.