Rethinking the clinical research protocol: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for reducing noncompliance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 103.4 million cases and 1.1 million deaths have occurred nationally as of November 2023. Despite the benefit of mitigating measures, the pandemic's effect on participant safety is rarely documented. METHODS: This study assessed noncompliance occurring from July 2019 to August 2021 that were stratified by the date of noncompliance (before or after restrictions). Events were described by size, site, noncompliance type, primary category, subcategory, and cause. In addition, noncompliance associated with COVID-19 was analyzed to determine characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 323 noncompliance events occurred across 21,146 participants at risk in 35 protocols. The overall rate of noncompliance increased from 0.008 events per participant to 0.022 events per participant after the COVID-19 restrictions (p < 0.001). For onsite protocols, the median within protocol change in rates was 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.141) after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.54). For large-sized protocols (n ≥ 100), the median within protocol change in rates was also 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.017) after COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.15). For events related to COVID-19 restrictions, 160/162 (99%) were minor deviations, 161/162 (99%) were procedural noncompliance, and 124/162 (77%) were an incomplete study visit. CONCLUSION: These noncompliance events have implications for clinical trial methodology because nonadherence to trial design can lead to participant safety concerns and loss of trial data validity. Protocols should be written to better facilitate the capture of all safety and efficacy data. This recommendation should be considered when changes occur to the protocol environment that are outside of the study team's control.

Development of a culturally targeted chatbot to inform living kidney donor candidates of African ancestry about APOL1 genetic testing: a mixed methods study.

Clinical chatbots are increasingly used to help integrate genetic testing into clinical contexts, but no chatbot exists for Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic testing of living kidney donor (LKD) candidates of African ancestry. Our study aimed to culturally adapt and assess perceptions of the Gia® chatbot to help integrate APOL1 testing into LKD evaluation. Ten focus groups and post-focus group surveys were conducted with 54 LKDs, community members, and kidney transplant recipients of African ancestry. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Key themes about making Gia culturally targeted included ensuring: (1) transparency by providing Black LKDs' testimonials, explaining patient privacy and confidentiality protections, and explaining how genetic testing can help LKD evaluation; (2) content is informative by educating Black LKDs about APOL1 testing instead of aiming to convince them to undergo testing, presenting statistics, and describing how genetic discrimination is legally prevented; and (3) content avoids stigma about living donation in the Black community. Most agreed Gia was neutral and unbiased (82%), trustworthy (82%), and words, phrases, and expressions were familiar to the intended audience (85%). Our culturally adapted APOL1 Gia chatbot was well regarded. Future research should assess how this chatbot could supplement provider discussion prior to genetic testing to scale APOL1 counseling and testing for LKD candidate clinical evaluation.

Patients with diabetes mellitus experience poorer outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to identify potential differences using validated clinical outcome instruments between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: Six-hundred eighty-four patients (32 with and 652 without DM) who underwent arthroscopic RCR were prospectively followed using the visual analog pain scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (mental and physical component scores) preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients with DM experienced significantly more pain (P = .0172) and had lower Simple Shoulder Test (P = .0458) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (P = .0200) scores than patients without DM 6 months after surgery. Although differences between groups are seen at other postoperative time points, none are statistically significant.They also exhibited lower self-rated mental health status at 12 months (P = .0034) and 24 months (P = .0077), as well as lower self-rated physical health status at 12 months (P = .0223) and 24 months (P = .0077). Changes in scores from preoperatively to postoperatively were not different for patients with DM vs. without DM. CONCLUSION: Patients with DM experience significantly more pain, exhibit significantly poorer shoulder function, and report persistently diminished mental and physical health status compared with their counterparts without DM after undergoing arthroscopic RCR. Although these differences did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, orthopedic surgeons should be cognizant of DM as an outcome-modifying variable when selecting, counseling, and treating patients with rotator cuff tears. Glycemic control should be scrutinized and optimized during the perioperative medical evaluation and ultimately factored into the surgical risk profile and prognosis.

Reducing Events of Noncompliance in Neurology Human Subjects Research: the Effect of Human Subjects Research Protection Training and Site Initiation Visits.

In an effort to minimize protocol noncompliance in neurological research studies that can potentially compromise patient safety, delay completion of the study, and result in premature termination and added costs, we determined the effect of investigator trainings and site initiation visits (SIVs) on the occurrence of noncompliance events. Results of protocol audits conducted at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke from 2003 to 2019 on 97 research protocols were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the depth of auditing and provision of investigator research training, audit data were separated into four arms: 1) Early Period, 2003 to 2012; 2) Middle Period, 2013 to 2016; and Late Period, 2017 to 2019, further divided into 3) Late Period without SIVs; and 4) Late Period with SIVs. Events of noncompliance were classified by the type of protocol deviation, the category, and the cause. In total, 952 events occurred across 1080 participants. Protocols audited during the Middle Period, compared to the Early Period, showed a decrease in the percentage of protocols with at least 1 noncompliance event. Protocols with SIVs had a further decrease in major, minor, procedural, eligibility, and policy events. Additionally, protocols audited during the Early Period had on average 0.46 major deviations per participant, compared to 0.26 events in protocols audited during the Middle Period, and 0.08 events in protocols audited during the Late Period with SIVs. Protocol deviations and noncompliance events in neurological clinical trials can be reduced by targeted investigator trainings and SIVs. These measures have major impacts on the integrity, safety, and effectiveness of human subjects research in neurology.