Understanding potential participation barriers to improve trial design and outcomes: clinical trial simulation in palmoplantar pustulosis as a case study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the experiences and perceptions of patients participating in a simulated clinical trial and identify ways to enhance future patient-centric trial designs. DESIGN: International, multicentre, non-interventional, virtual clinical trial visits with patient debriefs and advisory boards. SETTING: Virtual clinic visits and accompanying advisory boards. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients with palmoplantar pustulosis for simulated trial visits; 14 patients and patient representatives for advisory boards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative responses to trial documentation, visit schedule and logistics, and trial design were collected during patient debriefs. Results were discussed at two virtual advisory board meetings. RESULTS: Patients identified key barriers to participation and potential difficulties encountered when attending trial visits and completing assessments. They also proposed recommendations to overcome these challenges. Patients recognised the need for comprehensive informed consent forms, but recommended use of non-technical language, brevity and additional support to aid understanding. Other trial documentations should be relevant to the disease and include known efficacy and safety of the study drug. Patients were concerned about receiving placebo, stopping existing medications and being unable to receive the study drug after trial completion; therefore, patients and physicians recommended an open-label extension following trial completion. Trial visits were too numerous (n=20) and too long (3-4 hours each); patients recommended improvements to the design to make best use of their time and reduce unnecessary waiting. They also requested financial and logistical support. Patients expressed a desire for study outcomes that matter to them, related to their ability to undertake normal daily activities and not be a burden to others. CONCLUSIONS: Simulated trials are an innovative method for assessing trial design and acceptance from a patient-centric perspective, enabling specific improvements to be made prior to trial initiation. Incorporation of recommendations from simulated trials could enhance trial recruitment and retention, and optimise trial outcomes and data quality.

Redefining Patient-Centricity: Exploring the Next Best in People, Processes and Technology for the Future of Decentralized Clinical Trials: How patient-centric initiatives guide the clinical drug development Sponsored by process towards increased inclusivity and diversity, patient convenience, safety, research relevance, and ease of use

The article reports that The COVID-19 pandemic created a renewed interest and acceptance towards study participation in clinical trial research. This is an exciting time for the industry. With more capabilities than ever before – an explosion of data sources, insight from increasingly important stakeholders, and a variety of technologies and service providers – creating a trial around the patient and their needs, while also benefiting operationally, is achievable.

Pilot study of an occupational healthcare program to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune status of employees in a large pharmaceutical company.

OBJECTIVE: To safeguard key workers involved in development and production of medicines and ensure business continuity, we developed an occupational healthcare program, performed by our company's occupational healthcare services, to assess the infection and immune status for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This pilot program, conducted at our company facilities, evaluated the suitability of diagnostic tools in our setting for program upscaling. METHODS: We used different marketed in vitro diagnostics (including tests for antibodies against spike protein subunits S1 and S2 and nucleocapsid [N] protein) combined with medical history, symptoms and likelihood of infection. We evaluated the testing strategy over four visits in 141 employees (known positive COVID-19 history, n = 20; unknown status, n = 121) between April and June 2020 at four company locations in Germany. Digital self-monitoring over the pilot program duration was also included. RESULTS: No incident infections were detected. Based on immune status, medical history and likelihood of infection, 10 participants (8.3%) with previously unknown history of COVID-19 were identified to have been infected before entering the program. These participants, who recalled no or mild symptoms in the preceding months, were primarily identified using an assay that detected both S1 and S2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G. The frequency of positive lateral flow assay (LFA) results (IgM or IgG directed against the N-protein) in this cohort was lower compared with participants with a known history of COVID-19 (0‒10.8% vs. 33.8‒75.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot program suggest that LFA for antibodies may not always reliably detect current, recent or past infections; consequently, these have not been included in our upscaled occupational healthcare program. Regular testing strategies for viral RNA and antibodies directed against different SARS-CoV-2 proteins, combined with hygiene rules and a comprehensive baseline assessment, are recommended to ensure avoidance of infections at workplace as reliably as possible.