Longitudinal Experience With and Impressions of COVID-19-Related Clinical Research Changes.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to profound changes in clinical research, including remote consent, telehealth, off-site procedures, shipment of therapy, and remote study monitoring. We assessed longitudinal perceptions of these adjustments among clinical research professionals. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous survey assessing experiences, perceptions, and recommendations regarding COVID-19-related clinical research adjustments to cancer clinical research office personnel in May 2020 and again in November 2020. Responses were compared using Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A total of 90 of 102 invited research personnel (88%) responded. Fifty-three (59%) reported participating in both initial and follow-up surveys. The proportion of respondents reporting personal experience with COVID-19-related adjustments increased over time, particularly for remote initial consent (29% v 4%), remote reconsent (24% v 9%), and remote study monitoring (36% v 22%). Perceived impact of COVID-19-related adjustments on data quality (P = .02) and patient experience (P = .002) improved significantly. However, perceived effect on patient safety (P = .02) and respondent's experience (P = .09) became less favorable. Individuals with personal experience with the adjustment were more likely to recommend continuing remote consent (62% v 38%; P = .04), remote monitoring (69% v 45%; P = .05), and therapy shipment (67% v 35%; P = .01) after the COVID-19 pandemic, with nonsignificant trends for off-site diagnostics (44% v 24%; P = .13) and telehealth visits (66% v 45%; P = .08). CONCLUSION: More than 6 months into the global pandemic, perceptions of COVID-19-related clinical research changes remain favorable. Experienced individuals are more likely to recommend that these changes continue in the future.

Role of CTSA institutes and academic medical centers in facilitating preapproval access to investigational agents and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: With no approved treatments for COVID-19 initially available, the Food and Drug Administration utilized multiple preapproval pathways to provide access to investigational agents and/or medical devices: Expanded Access, Emergency Use Authorizations, and Clinical Trials. Regulatory units within an Academic Medical Center (AMC), including those part of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium, have provided support for clinicians in navigating these options prior to the pandemic. As such, they were positioned to be a resource for accessing therapies during the COVID-19 public health emergency. METHODS: A small survey and a follow-on poll of the national Investigational New Drug (IND)/Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Workgroup were conducted in October and December 2020 to determine whether CTSA regulatory units assisted in facilitating access to COVID-19 therapies and the extent of pandemic-related challenges these units faced. RESULTS: Fifteen survey and 21 poll responses were received, which provided insights into the demands placed on these regulatory support units due to the pandemic and the changes required to provide critical support during this and future crises. Key changes and lessons learned included the importance of regulatory knowledge to support the institutional response, the critical need for electronic submission capacity for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents, and the nimble reallocation of regulatory and legal resources to support patient access to investigational agents and/or medical devices during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: AMC- and CTSA-based regulatory units played a meaningful role in the COVID-19 pandemic but further unit modifications are needed for enabling more robust regulatory support in the future.

Experience, Perceptions, and Recommendations Concerning COVID-19-Related Clinical Research Adjustments.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA and NIH altered clinical trial requirements to protect participants and manage study conduct. Given their detailed knowledge of research protocols and regular contact with patients, clinicians, and sponsors, clinical research professionals offer important perspectives on these changes. METHODS: We developed and distributed an anonymous survey assessing COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustment experiences, perceptions, and recommendations to Clinical Research Office personnel at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Responses were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 94 of 109 contacted research personnel (87%) responded. Among these individuals, 58% had >5 years' professional experience in clinical research, and 56% had personal experience with a COVID-19-related change. Respondents perceived that these changes had a positive impact on patient safety; treatment efficacy; patient and staff experience; and communication with patients, investigators, and sponsors. More than 90% felt that positive changes should be continued after COVID-19. For remote consent, telehealth, therapy shipment, off-site diagnostics, and remote monitoring, individuals with personal experience with the specific change and individuals with >5 years' professional experience were numerically more likely to recommend continuing the adjustment, and these differences were significant for telehealth (P=.04) and therapy shipment (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research professionals perceive that COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustments positively impact multiple aspects of study conduct. Those with greatest experience-both specific to COVID-19-related changes and more generally-are more likely to recommend that these adjustments continue in the future.