Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

Intentional Rounding versus Standard of Care for Patients Hospitalised in Internal Medicine Wards: Results from a Cluster-Randomised Nation-Based Study.

The aim of the study was to explore the effects of Intentional Rounding, a regular-based proactive patient monitoring, on falls and pressure ulcers in internal medicine units. This is a cluster-randomised controlled study, where units were assigned (1:1) to Intentional Rounding (intervention group) or Standard of Care (control group). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of falls and new pressure ulcers. These events were considered separately as secondary endpoints, together with the number of bell calls and the evaluation of patient satisfaction. Primary analyses were carried out on the modified intention-to-treat population (hospitalisation of at least 10 days). Recruitment occurred between October 2019 and March 2020, at which time the study was prematurely closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrolment totalled 1822 patients at 26 sites; 779 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group had a lower risk of falls (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78; p = 0.03). There were no statistical differences in new pressure ulcers or the cumulative incidence of both adverse events. Mean bell calls for each patient were 15.4 ± 24.1 in the intervention group and 13.7 ± 20.5 in the control group (p = 0.38). Additionally, patient satisfaction in the intervention group was almost at the maximum level. Our study supports the usefulness of Intentional Rounding in a complex and vulnerable population such as that hospitalised in internal medicine units.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 for clinical research operations in Italy: what have we learned and what can we apply in the future?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stressed the importance of health research as never before. In the specific domain of clinical research, the effort to rapidly find responses to health challenges and therapeutic hypotheses has highlighted the need for efficient, timely, ethically correct research. The guidelines published by the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco have shown that some useful changes are feasible: simple and rapid methods have been implemented to conduct clinical research in the emergency conditions of the pandemic, maintaining high levels of quality. In this perspective, four Italian scientific associations operating in clinical research have worked together to evaluate which measures, among the ones implemented during the pandemic, have been particularly significant and potentially effective under normal conditions or in case of emergencies, and that therefore will be useful in the future as well.