Cannabidiol for at risk for psychosis youth: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No biological treatment has been firmly established for the at-risk stage of psychotic disorder. In this study we aim to test if subthreshold psychotic symptoms can be effectively treated with cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive compound of the plant Cannabis sativa. The question has taken on increased importance in the wake of evidence questioning both the need and efficacy of specific pharmacological interventions in the ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis group. METHODS: Three-arm randomized controlled trial of 405 patients (135 per arm) aged 12-25 years who meet UHR for psychosis criteria. The study includes a 6-week lead-in phase during which 10% of UHR individuals are expected to experience symptom remission. Participants will receive CBD (per oral) at doses 600 or 1000 mg per day (fixed schedule) for 12 weeks. Participants in the third arm of the trial will receive matching placebo capsules. Primary outcome is severity of positive psychotic symptoms as measured by the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States at 12 weeks. We hypothesize that CBD will be significantly more effective than placebo in improving positive psychotic symptoms in UHR patients. All participants will also be followed up 6 months post baseline to evaluate if treatment effects are sustained. CONCLUSION: This paper reports on the rationale and protocol of the Cannabidiol for At Risk for psychosis Youth (CanARY) study. This study will test CBD for the first time in the UHR phase of psychotic disorder.

Systems-Level Change to Alleviate Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Access for Adolescents and Young Adults in Australia.

Purpose: International data demonstrate association between clinical trial participation and reduced cancer mortality. Adolescents and young adults (AYA) have low clinical trial enrollment rates. We established a program to understand local barriers and develop targeted solutions that lead to greater AYA clinical trial participation. Methods: A steering committee (SC) with expertise in adult and pediatric oncology, research ethics, and consumer representation was formed. The SC mapped barriers related to AYA trial access and established working groups (WGs) around three themes. Results: The Regulatory Awareness WG identified a lack of understanding of processes that support protocol approval for clinical trials across the AYA age range. A guideline to raise awareness was developed. The Access WG identified challenges for young adults (18-25 years) to access a pediatric hospital to enroll in a pediatric trial. A procedure was developed to streamline applications for access. The first six applications using this procedure have been successful. The Availability WG identified lack of pediatric-adult oncology reciprocal relationships as a barrier to awareness of open trials, and future collaboration. An AYA Craft Group Framework was established to grow relationships within tumor streams across institutions; two craft groups are now operating locally. An additional achievement was a successful request to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for Australian adoption of the Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. Conclusion: This multipronged approach to improving AYA clinical trial access has relevance for other health environments. Our knowledge products are available as an online toolkit.

Clinical trials site recruitment optimisation: Guidance from Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Participants are integral to the success of any clinical research study, yet participant recruitment into clinical trials poses ongoing and complex challenges. It is widely accepted and recognised that clinical trial sites often find it difficult to meet recruitment goals, both in terms of accrual targets and timelines. This can impact the validity of trials or cause major delays for research. There are very few frameworks available to clinical trial sites to improve recruitment. The GREET project (Guidance to Recruitment: Examining Experiences at clinical Trial sites) sought to identify barriers to recruitment and produce formal guidance to optimise recruitment outcomes. METHODS: Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality, a collaborative of sector stakeholders, convened a project team with comprehensive knowledge of the Australian clinical trials sector to undertake the GREET project. The project scope included exploration of recruitment issues at a site level across all phases of clinical trials and all types of trial sites. The scope excluded upstream issues such as protocol design and general public clinical trial awareness, participant retention and elements of recruitment outside a site's capacity to directly influence or control. The project team's extensive knowledge and experience conducting clinical trials in Australia was used to collaboratively identify a list of 24 key barriers and 12 enablers to site recruitment which formed the basis of the project. Key stakeholder groups were surveyed to challenge project team assumptions. A national and international environmental scan and literature review was conducted to identify best-practice recruitment solutions. RESULTS: A total of 343 people responded to a survey sent to sites, sponsors, and contract research organisations, and 162 people responded to a survey sent to consumers via consumer networks. The key barriers and enablers initially identified by the project team aligned with the key outcomes of the surveys, which in turn assisted in the development of best-practice recommendations in the form of a Clinical Trial Site Recruitment Guide. Recommendations were grouped into four key themes; conducting accurate study feasibility; proactive planning during start-up; selecting optimal recruitment methods; and participant involvement. Early intervention was identified as a key facilitator in maximising improved recruitment outcomes. The GREET Clinical Trial Site Recruitment Guide is publicly accessible on the Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality website. CONCLUSION: Participant recruitment challenges experienced at a site level are widespread and varied, and there is no universal recruitment solution. However, this project identified that there are interventions and assessments that can be proactively implemented and selectively applied to facilitate improved recruitment outcomes.