Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints.

BACKGROUND: Very little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and potential response strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and potential response strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and potential response strategies was reached. RESULTS: We conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main themes: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of clinical studies, we identified two main themes: perceived benefit of prioritization and potential strategies for prioritization. All main themes are further specified with subthemes. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subthemes. DISCUSSION: Potential response strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share common ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core response strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific, medical, and ethics viewpoint.

Should the governance of individual treatment attempts ("Individuelle Heilversuche") include praxis evaluation? Results from qualitative stakeholder interviews.

INTRODUCTION: Individual treatment attempts (ITAs) are a German concept for the treatment of individual patients by physicians with nonstandard therapeutic approaches. Due to the lack of evidence, ITAs come with a high amount of uncertainty regarding the risk-benefit ratio. Despite the high uncertainty, no prospective review and no systematic retrospective evaluation of ITAs are required in Germany. Our objective was to explore stakeholders' attitudes toward the retrospective evaluation (monitoring) or prospective evaluation (review) of ITAs. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study among relevant stakeholder groups. We used the SWOT framework to represent the stakeholders' attitudes. We applied content analysis to the recorded and transcribed interviews in MAXQDA. RESULTS: Twenty interviewees participated and pointed to several arguments in favor of the retrospective evaluation of ITAs (e.g. knowledge gain about circumstances of ITAs). The interviewees expressed concerns regarding the validity and practical relevance of the evaluation results. The viewpoints on review addressed several contextual factors. CONCLUSION: The current situation with a complete lack of evaluation insufficiently reflects safety concerns. German health policy decision makers should be more explicit about where and why evaluation is needed. Prospective and retrospective evaluations should be piloted in areas of ITAs with a particularly high uncertainty.

Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study.

BACKGROUND: To support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan). OBJECTIVE: This study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: In the first step, we will assess patients' information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients' level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested. RESULTS: Interviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022. CONCLUSIONS: A unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24954.

Completion rate and impact on physician-patient relationship of video consultations in medical oncology: a randomised controlled open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone video call applications generally did not undergo testing in randomised controlled clinical trials prior to their implementation in patient care regarding the rate of successful patient visits and impact on the physician-patient relationship. METHODS: The National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT) MOBILE trial was a monocentric open-label randomised controlled clinical trial of patients with solid tumours undergoing systemic cancer therapy with need of a follow-up visit with their consulting physician at outpatient clinics. 66 patients were 1:1 randomised to receive either a standard in-person follow-up visit at outpatient clinics or a video call via a mobile phone application. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as the proportion of patients successfully completing the first follow-up visit. Secondary outcomes included success rate of further video calls, time spent by patient and physician, patient satisfaction and quality of physician-patient relationship. FINDINGS: Success rate of the first follow-up visit in the intention-to-treat cohort was 87.9% (29 of 33) for in-person visits and 78.8% (26 of 33) for video calls (relative risk: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.13, p=0.51). The most common reasons for failure were software incompatibility in the video call and no-show in the in-person visit arm. The success rate for further video visits was 91.7% (11 of 12). Standardised patient questionnaires showed significantly decreased total time spent and less direct costs for patients (Δmean -170.8 min, 95% CI -246 min to -95.5 min), p<0.0001; Δmean -€14.37, 95% CI -€23.9 to -€4.8, p<0.005) and comparable time spent for physicians in the video call arm (Δmean 0.5 min, 95% CI -5.4 min to 6.4 min, p=0.86). Physician-patient relationship quality mean scores assessed by a validated standardised questionnaire were higher in the video call arm (1.13-fold, p=0.02). INTERPRETATION: Follow-up visits with the tested mobile phone video call application were feasible but software compatibility should be critically evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015788.