Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research. METHODS: The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings. RESULTS: During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public. CONCLUSION: The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials.

Women and people from most racial and ethnic groups in the United States have historically been under-represented in clinical trials of investigational medical products. Inadequate representation of these groups may lead to an incomplete understanding of the safety and efficacy of new drugs, devices, biologics, and vaccines, and limit the generalizability of trial findings. As a result, new medical products may not be beneficial to all people who need them, and existing inequities in outcomes among various population groups may remain unchanged or worsen, or new disparities may arise. Although much work has focused on study-level strategies, research organizations must make systemic changes to how clinical trials are envisioned and implemented to achieve sustainable support for diversity and inclusion in clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted interviews with leaders at institutions that conduct clinical trials to explore perspectives on organizational-level practices that promote diversity and inclusion in clinical trials. Leaders described motivations, such as an ethical and moral imperative; organizational practices, such as staff investment and resource allocation; perceived return on investments, such as better science; and deterrents, such as cost and time. The CTTI also convened an expert meeting to discuss the interview findings and provide guidance. We present the interview findings and expert guidance in a framework that describes four key areas-commitment, partnerships, accountability, and resources-on sustaining organizational-level approaches for improving diversity and inclusion in clinical trials, with the ultimate goal of advancing health equity. Institutions who conduct and support clinical trials should implement organizational-level approaches to improve equitable access and diverse patient participation in clinical trials.

The Rockefeller Team Science Leadership training program: Curriculum, standardized assessment of competencies, and impact of returning assessments.

The ability to effectively lead an interdisciplinary translational team is a crucial component of team science success. Most KL2 Clinical Scholars have been members of scientific teams, but few have been team science leaders. There is a dearth of literature and outcome measures of effective Team Science Leadership in clinical and translational research. We focused our curriculum to emphasize Team Science Leadership, developed a list of Team Science Leadership competencies for translational investigators using a modified Delphi method, and incorporated the competencies into a quantitative evaluation survey. The survey is completed on entry and annually thereafter by the Scholar; the Scholar's primary mentor and senior staff who educate and interact with the Scholar rate the Scholar at the end of each year. The program leaders and mentor review the results with each Scholar. The survey scales had high internal consistency and good factor structure. Overall ratings by mentors and senior staff were generally high, but ratings by Scholars tended to be lower, offering opportunities for discussion and career planning. Scholars rated the process favorably. A Team Science Leadership curriculum and periodic survey of attained competencies can inform individual career development and guide team science curriculum development.

The CTSA Consortium's Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR).

The 61 CTSA Consortium sites are home to valuable programs and infrastructure supporting translational science and all are charged with ensuring that such investments translate quickly to improved clinical care. Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR) is the Consortium's effort to collect and make available information on programs and resources to maximize efficiency and facilitate collaborations. By capturing information on a broad range of assets supporting the entire clinical and translational research spectrum, CATCHR aims to provide the necessary infrastructure and processes to establish and maintain an open-access, searchable database of consortium resources to support multisite clinical and translational research studies. Data are collected using rigorous, defined methods, with the resulting information made visible through an integrated, searchable Web-based tool. Additional easy-to-use Web tools assist resource owners in validating and updating resource information over time. In this paper, we discuss the design and scope of the project, data collection methods, current results, and future plans for development and sustainability. With increasing pressure on research programs to avoid redundancy, CATCHR aims to make available information on programs and core facilities to maximize efficient use of resources.

Using research metrics to improve timelines: proceedings from the 2nd Annual CTSA clinical research management workshop.

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Workshop was conceived as a venue to foster communication among academic medical centers (AMCs) in the development of methods to improve clinical research management. The consortium, comprised of 46 awardee sites as of 2009, many with multiple AMCs, is expected to expand to 60 sites when fully implemented. At the 2nd Annual CTSA Clinical Research Management Workshop held on June 22nd and 23rd , 2009, on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus, consortium members and potential CTSA sites gathered with stakeholders from private industry, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, and private research organizations, to formulate a plan to address challenges in clinical research management. Specific aims included improving protocol processing and sharing process improvement initiatives in the expectation that best practices will be implemented and improvements will be measured and reported. The findings presented at this workshop indicated significant variance in Institutional Review Board approval of protocols and contract execution by AMC and CTSA sites. Most represented marked delays compared to non-AMC sites and that, as a likely consequence, AMCs were later to enroll patients and/or meet enrollment targets compared to dedicated or professional sites.