Recruitment for Remote Decentralized Studies in Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Traditional in-person Parkinson's disease (PD) research studies are often slow to recruit and place unnecessary burden on participants. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has added new impetus to the development of new research models. OBJECTIVE: To compare recruitment processes and outcomes of three remote decentralized observational PD studies with video visits. METHODS: We examined the number of participants recruited, speed of recruitment, geographic distribution of participants, and strategies used to enhance recruitment in FIVE, a cross-sectional study of Fox Insight participants with and without PD (n = 203); VALOR-PD, a longitudinal study of 23andMe, Inc. research participants carrying the LRRK2 G2019S variant with and without PD (n = 277); and AT-HOME PD, a longitudinal study of former phase III clinical trial participants with PD (n = 226). RESULTS: Across the three studies, 706 participants from 45 U.S. states and Canada enrolled at a mean per study rate of 4.9 participants per week over an average of 51 weeks. The cohorts were demographically homogenous with regard to race (over 95%white) and level of education (over 90%with more than a high school education). The number of participants living in primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas in each study ranged from 30.3-42.9%. Participants reported interest in future observational (98.5-99.6%) and interventional (76.1-87.6%) research studies with remote video visits. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of large, geographically dispersed remote cohorts from a single location is feasible. Interest in participation in future remote decentralized PD studies is high. More work is needed to identify best practices for recruitment, particularly of diverse participants.

Snapshot PCR surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in hospital staff in England.

BACKGROUND: Significant nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated. Understanding the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 carriage amongst HCWs at work is necessary to inform the development of HCW screening programmes to control nosocomial spread. METHODS: Cross-sectional 'snapshot' survey from April-May 2020; HCWs recruited from six UK hospitals. Participants self-completed a health questionnaire and underwent a combined viral nose and throat swab, tested by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 with viral culture on majority of positive samples. FINDINGS: Point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 carriage across the sites was 2.0% (23/1152 participants), median cycle threshold value 35.70 (IQR:32.42-37.57). 17 were previously symptomatic, two currently symptomatic (isolated anosmia and sore throat); the remainder declared no prior or current symptoms. Symptoms in the past month were associated with threefold increased odds of testing positive (aOR 3.46, 95%CI 1.38-8.67; p = 0.008). SARS-CoV-2 virus was isolated from only one (5%) of nineteen cultured samples. A large proportion (39%) of participants reported symptoms in the past month. INTERPRETATION: The point-prevalence is similar to previous estimates for HCWs in April 2020, though a magnitude higher than in the general population. Based upon interpretation of symptom history and testing results including viral culture, the majority of those testing positive were unlikely to be infectious at time of sampling. Development of screening programmes must balance the potential to identify additional cases based upon likely prevalence, expanding the symptoms list to encourage HCW testing, with resource implications and risks of excluding those unlikely to be infectious with positive tests. FUNDING: Public Health England.