Comparing two methods for delivering clinical trial informed consent information to older adults: singular versus stepped approach.

BACKGROUND: Adapting the informed consent process to the needs of older adults may enhance engagement and willingness to participate in a clinical trial. A key aspect of the process is being provided with written clinical trial information and consent documents and having an opportunity to discuss the information with the researcher. However, there are no guidelines on the most appropriate method for delivering this information to older adults and it is not known whether the delivery method is a facilitator or barrier towards clinical trial participation. AIMS: To compare two delivery methods of informed consent on recruitment, refusal to continue and randomisation rates in a general practice-based clinical trial involving older adults. METHODS: In a matched cohort sub-study as part of the STAtins in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial, 520 participants were allocated into two groups by age, gender and attending general practice location, to receive the trial information and consent form in the mail (Method 1) prior to the first baseline visit or in person (Method 2) at the visit where a comprehensive informed consent process took place. RESULTS: Compared with Method 1, potential participants assigned to Method 2 were more likely to agree to attend the first baseline screening visit (refusal rate 20% vs 13.5%, respectively, p = 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants recruited into the trial by providing written informed consent at the first baseline screening visit. For each informed consent delivery method, similar proportions of participants refused to take part in the trial by the end of the screening phase. Randomisation rates in the two groups were also similar. Time to conduct the informed consent procedure took significantly longer with Method 2 compared with Method 1 (median time 20 vs 15 min, respectively, p < 0.01). Interest in the research trial topic was the main reason cited (33.4%) for considering trial participation. CONCLUSION: Later delivery of informed consent documents to potential participants in this trial was associated with a small increase in attendance at the first, in person, screening visit. However, the randomisation rate of participants into the trial was not affected by the method and timing of delivery of informed consent information. Similar randomisation rates occurred whether potential participants were mailed informed consent documents prior to the first in person screening visit or were given the information at the screening visit.

STAREE-Mind Imaging Study: a randomised placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin for prevention of cerebrovascular decline and neurodegeneration in older individuals.

Introduction: Cerebrovascular disease and neurodegeneration are causes of cognitive decline and dementia, for which primary prevention options are currently lacking. Statins are well-tolerated and widely available medications that potentially have neuroprotective effects. The STAREE-Mind Imaging Study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that will investigate the impact of atorvastatin on markers of neurovascular health and brain atrophy in a healthy, older population using MRI. This is a nested substudy of the 'Statins for Reducing Events in the Elderly' (STAREE) primary prevention trial. Methods: Participants aged 70 years or older (n=340) will be randomised to atorvastatin or placebo. Comprehensive brain MRI assessment will be undertaken at baseline and up to 4 years follow-up, including structural, diffusion, perfusion and susceptibility imaging. The primary outcome measures will be change in brain free water fraction (a composite marker of vascular leakage, neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration) and white matter hyperintensity volume (small vessel disease). Secondary outcomes will include change in perivascular space volume (glymphatic drainage), cortical thickness, hippocampal volume, microbleeds and lacunae, prefrontal cerebral perfusion and white matter microstructure. Ethics and dissemination: Academic publications from this work will address the current uncertainty regarding the impact of statins on brain structure and vascular integrity. This study will inform the utility of repurposing these well-tolerated, inexpensive and widely available drugs for primary prevention of neurological outcomes in older individuals. Ethics approval was given by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, Protocol 12206. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05586750.

Impact of informed consent content and length on recruitment of older adults into a community based primary prevention trial.

AIMS: To compare recruitment, refusal and randomisation rates of older adults into a general practice-based clinical trial with two versions (varied format, content and language) of the Participant Information and Consent Form (PICF). METHODS: This prospective PICF study was conducted within the STAREE (STAtins in Reducing Events in the Elderly) clinical trial. Participants phone screened between October 2015 to February 2016 formed Group 1 and were mailed the extended PICF version and participants phone screened between October 2016 to February 2017 formed Group 2 and were mailed the shortened PICF version. Participants who attended a subsequent baseline screening visit were guided through a comprehensive informed consent process. RESULTS: During the screening phase of the trial, the likelihood of refusing trial participation was lower in Group 2 compared to Group 1 equating to an overall 23% reduction in risk (RR 0.77, P = 0.005, 95% CI 0.62-0.95). Group 2 had a 6.4% higher randomisation rate compared with Group 1 (65.3% versus 58.9% respectively) but this difference was not statistically significant. Factors associated with trial participation were male gender, age between 70 and 75 years and living alone (all p < .0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst avoiding lengthy and complex PICF documents may assist with initial trial engagement, it needs to be supplemented with other strategies to support ongoing trial interest to randomisation and beyond. Participants refused trial participation throughout the screening phase indicating that the PICF was only one factor among several affecting an individual's decision to participate in this clinical trial.