ABSTRACT
Importance: The need to maintain clinical trial recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the rapid uptake of digital health for the conduct of clinical trials. Different terms are used in different jurisdictions and clinical contexts, including digital trials, networked trials, teletrials (TT), and decentralized clinical trials (DCT) with a need to agree to terms. Observations: This clinical care review summarized publications and gray literature, including government policies for the safe conduct of clinical trials using digital health. It compares 2 frequently used methodologies, DCT and TT, first developed before the COVID-19 pandemic by trialists and stakeholders in Australia to improve access to cancer clinical trials for geographically dispersed populations. TT uses a networked approach to implement clinical trials to share care between facilities and uses an agreement between sites or a supervision plan to improve governance and safety. Government regulators have adapted existing regulations and invested in the rollout of the TT model. The term DCT emerged in the northern hemisphere and has been the subject of guidance from regulatory agencies. DCT uses digital health to deliver care in nontraditional sites, such as participants' homes, but does not mandate a networked approach between health facilities or require a supervision plan to be in place. Conclusions and Relevance: TT can be considered as a specific type of DCT with several potential advantages, including upskilling across a network. DCT is a new paradigm for the use of digital health in the safe conduct of clinical trials and is a transformative issue in cancer care, addressing disparities in access to clinical trials and improving clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Health Services Accessibility , AustraliaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness of the public health response to COVID-19 in our local region by documenting detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nucleic acid testing (NAT) positivity and seroprevalence. METHODS: In this prospective study (ACTRN12620000487910), symptomatic adult international travellers returning to regional Australia in March 2020 underwent SARS-CoV-2 NAT and SARS-CoV-2-specific serology. RESULTS: Ninety-nine eligible participants were included. Nine participants had laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2, all returning between 16-20 March 2020. Eight (89%) had a positive NAT and seven (78%) had a positive serology test. The majority returned from New Zealand. Participants most frequently presented with cough (100%), headache (66.7%) and sore throat (44.4%). No community cases were detected from 1 March to 30 June 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The study cohort of international travellers returning to regional Australia in March 2020 returned eight positive SARS-CoV-2 NAT results over a five-day window. Serology identified one additional case and was negative in two cases who were PCR positive. Longitudinal data confirmed an absence of local community transmission to 30 June 2020. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: A combination of local, national and environmental factors were necessary to prevent the establishment of community transmission in our local region.
