The Ethnic/Racial Variations of Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study protocol.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Epidemiological studies of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) have consistently demonstrated variation in incidence, location, age at presentation, and outcomes among non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic populations. We report here the design and methods for this large, prospective, multi-center case-control study of ICH. METHODS: The Ethnic/Racial Variations of Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study is a multi-center, prospective case-control study of ICH. Cases are identified by hot-pursuit and enrolled using standard phenotype and risk factor information and include neuroimaging and blood sample collection. Controls are centrally identified by random digit dialing to match cases by age (±5 years), race, ethnicity, sex, and metropolitan region. RESULTS: As of March 22, 2013, 1655 cases of ICH had been recruited into the study, which is 101.5% of the target for that date, and 851 controls had been recruited, which is 67.2% of the target for that date (1267 controls) for a total of 2506 subjects, which is 86.5% of the target for that date (2897 subjects). Of the 1655 cases enrolled, 1640 cases had the case interview entered into the database, of which 628 (38%) were non-Hispanic black, 458 (28%) were non-Hispanic white, and 554 (34%) were Hispanic. Of the 1197 cases with imaging submitted, 876 (73.2%) had a 24 hour follow-up CT available. In addition to CT imaging, 607 cases have had MRI evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The ERICH study is a large, case-control study of ICH with particular emphasis on recruitment of minority populations for the identification of genetic and epidemiological risk factors for ICH and outcomes after ICH.

Development and evaluation of a novel training program to build study staff skills in equitable and inclusive engagement, recruitment, and retention of clinical research participants.

Background: Adequate equitable recruitment of underrepresented groups in clinical research and trials is a national problem and remains a daunting challenge to translating research discoveries into effective healthcare practices. Engagement, recruitment, and retention (ER&R) training programs for Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) often focus on policies and regulations. Although some training on the importance of diversity and inclusion in clinical research participation has recently been developed, there remains a need for training that couples critical equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) concepts with skill development in effective recruitment and retention strategies, regulations, and best practices. Approach and methods: We developed the ER&R Certificate program as a holistic approach to provide Duke University CRPs the opportunity to build competency in gap areas and to increase comfort in championing equitable partnerships with clinical research participants. The thirteen core and elective courses include blended learning elements, such as e-learning and wiki journaling prompts, to facilitate meaningful discussions. Pre- and post-assessments administered to CRP program participants and their managers assessed program impact on CRP skills in ER&R tasks and comfort in equitable, diverse, and inclusive engagement of clinical research participants. Results and discussion: Results from the first two cohorts indicate that CRPs perceived growth in their own comfort with program learning objectives, especially those centered on participant partnership and EDI principles, and most managers witnessed growth in competence and responsibility for ER&R-related tasks. Results suggest value in offering CRPs robust training programs that integrate EDI and ER&R training.

Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.

Patient recruitment is widely recognized as a key determinant of success for clinical trials. Yet a substantial number of trials fail to reach recruitment goals-a situation that has important scientific, financial, ethical, and policy implications. Further, there are important effects on stakeholders who directly contribute to the trial including investigators, sponsors, and study participants. Despite efforts over multiple decades to identify and address barriers, recruitment challenges persist. To advance a more comprehensive approach to trial recruitment, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) convened a project team to examine the challenges and to issue actionable, evidence-based recommendations for improving recruitment planning that extend beyond common study-specific strategies. We describe our multi-stakeholder effort to develop a framework that delineates three areas essential to strategic recruitment planning efforts: (1) trial design and protocol development, (2) trial feasibility and site selection, and (3) communication. Our recommendations propose an upstream approach to recruitment planning that has the potential to produce greater impact and reduce downstream barriers. Additionally, we offer tools to help facilitate adoption of the recommendations. We hope that our framework and recommendations will serve as a guide for initial efforts in clinical trial recruitment planning irrespective of disease or intervention focus, provide a common basis for discussions in this area and generate targets for further analysis and continual improvement.

Facilitators and barriers to the successful implementation of pediatric antibacterial drug trials: Findings from CTTI's survey of investigators.

An urgent need exists to develop new antibacterial drugs for children. We conducted research with investigators of pediatric antibacterial drug trials to identify facilitators and barriers in the conduct of these trials. Seventy-three investigators completed an online survey assessing the importance of 15 facilitators (grouped in 5 topical categories) and the severity of 36 barriers (grouped in 6 topical categories) to implementing pediatric antibacterial drug trials. Analysis focused on the identification of key factors that facilitate the successful implementation of pediatric antibacterial drug trials and the key barriers to implementation. Almost all investigators identified two factors as very important facilitators: having site personnel for enrollment and having adequate funding. Other top factors were related to staffing. Among the barriers, factors related to parent concerns and consent were prominent, particularly obtaining parental consent when there was disagreement between parents, concerns about the number of blood draws, and concerns about the number of invasive procedures. Having overly narrow eligibility criteria was also identified as a major barrier. The survey findings suggest three areas in which to focus efforts to help facilitate ongoing drug development: (1) improving engagement with parents of children who may be eligible to enroll in a pediatric antibacterial drug trial, (2) broadening inclusion criteria to allow more participants to enroll, and (3) ensuring adequate staffing and establishing sustainable financial strategies, such as funding pediatric trial networks. The pediatric antibacterial drug trials enterprise is likely to benefit from focused efforts by all stakeholders to remove barriers and enhance facilitation.

The Rules of Engagement: CTTI Recommendations for Successful Collaborations Between Sponsors and Patient Groups Around Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the elements necessary for successful collaboration between patient groups and academic and industry sponsors of clinical trials, in order to develop recommendations for best practices for effective patient group engagement. METHODS: In-depth interviews, informed by a previously reported survey, were conducted to identify the fundamentals of successful patient group engagement. Thirty-two respondents from 3 sectors participated: patient groups, academic researchers, and industry. The findings were presented to a multistakeholder group of experts in January 2015. The expert group came to consensus on a set of actionable recommendations for best practices for patient groups and research sponsors. RESULTS: Interview respondents acknowledged that not all patient groups are created equal in terms of what they can contribute to a clinical trial. The most important elements for effective patient group engagement include establishing meaningful partnerships, demonstrating mutual benefits, and collaborating as partners from the planning stage forward. Although there is a growing appreciation by sponsors about the benefits of patient group engagement, there remains some resistance and some uncertainty about how best to engage. Barriers include mismatched expectations and a perception that patient groups lack scientific sophistication and that "wishful thinking" may cloud their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Patient groups are developing diverse skillsets and acquiring assets to leverage in order to become collaborators with industry and academia on clinical trials. Growing numbers of research sponsors across the clinical trials enterprise are recognizing the benefits of continuous and meaningful patient group engagement, but there are still mindsets to change, and stakeholders need further guidance on operationalizing a new model of clinical trial conduct.

Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A Quantitative Approach from CTTI's Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project.

BACKGROUND: While patient groups, regulators, and sponsors are increasingly considering engaging with patients in the design and conduct of clinical development programs, sponsors are often reluctant to go beyond pilot programs because of uncertainty in the return on investment. We developed an approach to estimate the financial value of patient engagement. METHODS: Expected net present value (ENPV) is a common technique that integrates the key business drivers of cost, time, revenue, and risk into a summary metric for project strategy and portfolio decisions. We assessed the impact of patient engagement on ENPV for a typical oncology development program entering phase 2 or phase 3. RESULTS: For a pre-phase 2 project, the cumulative impact of a patient engagement activity that avoids one protocol amendment and improves enrollment, adherence, and retention is an increase in net present value (NPV) of $62MM ($65MM for pre-phase 3) and an increase in ENPV of $35MM ($75MM for pre-phase 3). Compared with an investment of $100,000 in patient engagement, the NPV and ENPV increases can exceed 500-fold the investment. This ENPV increase is the equivalent of accelerating a pre-phase 2 product launch by 2½ years (1½ years for pre-phase 3). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjusted financial models can assess the impact of patient engagement. A combination of empirical data and subjective parameter estimates shows that engagement activities with the potential to avoid protocol amendments and/or improve enrollment, adherence, and retention may add considerable financial value. This approach can help sponsors assess patient engagement investment decisions.

Patient Engagement Practices in Clinical Research among Patient Groups, Industry, and Academia in the United States: A Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centered clinical trial design and execution is becoming increasingly important. No best practice guidelines exist despite a key stakeholder declaration to create more effective engagement models. This study aims to gain a better understanding of attitudes and practices for engaging patient groups so that actionable recommendations may be developed. METHODS: Individuals from industry, academic institutions, and patient groups were identified through Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and Drug Information Association rosters and mailing lists. Objectives, practices, and perceived barriers related to engaging patient groups in the planning, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials were reported in an online survey. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of survey data followed a literature review to inform survey questions. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 179) valued the importance of involving patient groups in research; however, patient group respondents valued their contributions to research protocol development, funding acquisition, and interpretation of study results more highly than those contributions were valued by industry and academic respondents (all p < .001). Patient group respondents placed higher value in open communications, clear expectations, and detailed contract execution than did non-patient group respondents (all p < .05). Industry and academic respondents more often cited internal bureaucratic processes and reluctance to share information as engagement barriers than did patient group respondents (all p < .01). Patient groups reported that a lack of transparency and understanding of the benefits of collaboration on the part of industry and academia were greater barriers than did non-patient group respondents (all p< .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reported similarities among approaches to engagement by the three stakeholder groups, key differences exist in perceived barriers and benefits to partnering with patient groups among the sectors studied. This recognition could inform the development of best practices for patient-centered clinical trial design and execution. Additional research is needed to define and optimize key success factors.

Interventions to increase enrollment in a large multicenter phase 3 trial of carotid stenting vs. endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials often encounter slow enrollment. Failing to meet sample size requirements has scientific, financial, and ethical implications. AIMS: We report interventions used to accelerate recruitment in a large multicenter clinical trial that was not meeting prespecified enrollment commitments. METHODS: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial began randomization in December 2000. To accelerate enrollment, multiple recruitment tactics were initiated, which included expanding the number of sites, hiring a recruitment director (May 2003), broadening eligibility criteria (April 2005), branding with a study logo, Web site, and recruitment materials, increasing site visits by study leadership, sending e-mails to the site teams after every enrollment, distributing electronic newsletters, and implementing investigator and coordinator conferences. RESULTS: From December 2000 through May 2003, 14 sites became active (54 patients randomized), from June 2003 through April 2005, 44 sites were added (404 patients randomized), and from May 2005 through July 2008, 54 sites were added (2044 patients randomized). During these time intervals, the number of patients enrolled per site per year was 1·5, 3·6, and 5·6. For the single years 2004 to 2008, the mean monthly randomization rates per year were 19·7, 38·1, 56·4, 53·0, and 54·7 (annualized), respectively. Enrollment was highest after recruitment tactics were implemented: 677 patients in 2006, 636 in 2007, and 657 in 2008 (annualized). The prespecified sample size of 2502 patients, 47% asymptomatic, was accomplished on July 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive recruitment tactics and investment in a full-time recruitment director who can lead implementation may be effective in accelerating recruitment in multicenter trials.