Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol.

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD. Objective: The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project. Methods: PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors. Results: 11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs. Conclusions: We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

Methods for Neuroscience Drug Development: Guidance on Standardization of the Process for Defining Clinical Outcome Strategies in Clinical Trials.

Neurosciences clinical trials continue to have notoriously high failure rates. Appropriate outcomes selection in early clinical trials is key to maximizing the likelihood of identifying new treatments in psychiatry and neurology. The field lacks good standards for designing outcome strategies, therefore The Outcomes Research Group was formed to develop and promote good practices in outcome selection. This article describes the first published guidance on the standardization of the process for clinical outcomes in neuroscience. A minimal step process is defined starting as early as possible, covering key activities for evidence generation in support of content validity, patient-centricity, validity requirements and considerations for regulatory acceptance. Feedback from expert members is provided, regarding the risks of shortening the process and examples supporting the recommended process are summarized. This methodology is now available to researchers in industry, academia or clinics aiming to implement consensus-based standard practices for clinical outcome selection, contributing to maximizing the efficiency of clinical research.

Essential data variables for a minimum dataset for head and neck cancer trials and clinical research: HNCIG consensus recommendations and database.

The Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG) has undertaken an international modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the essential data variables to be included in a minimum database for HNC research. Endorsed by 19 research organisations representing 34 countries, these recommendations provide the framework to facilitate and harmonise data collection and sharing for HNC research. These variables have also been incorporated into a ready to use downloadable HNCIG minimum database, available from the HNCIG website.

Developing generic templates to shape the future for conducting integrated research platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are designed using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice-scientific guideline, first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016. This document provides an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing and conducting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Recently, there has been heightened awareness of the importance of integrated research platform trials (IRPs) designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously. The use of a single master protocol as a key source document to fulfill trial conduct obligations has resulted in a re-examination of the templates used to fulfill the dynamic regulatory and modern drug development environment challenges. METHODS: Regulatory medical writing, biostatistical, and other members of EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) developed the suite of templates for IRPs over a 3.5-year period. Stakeholders contributing expertise included academic hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental organizations, patient representative groups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). RESULTS: The suite of templates for IRPs based on TransCelerate's Common Protocol Template (CPT) and statistical analysis plan (SAP) should help authors navigate relevant guidelines as they create study design content relevant for today's IRP studies. It offers practical suggestions for adaptive platform designs which offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility or adding new treatments to be tested during a trial. The EU-PEARL suite of templates for IRPs comprises a preface, followed by the actual resource. The preface clarifies the intended use and underlying principles that inform resource utility. The preface lists references contributing to the development of the resource. The resource includes TransCelerate CPT guidance text, and EU-PEARL-derived guidance text, distinguished from one another using shading. Rationale comments are used throughout for clarification purposes. In addition, a user-friendly, functional, and informative Platform Trials Best Practices tool to support the setup, design, planning, implementation, and conduct of complex and innovative trials to support multi-sourced/multi-company platform trials is also provided. Together, the EU-PEARL suite of templates and the Platform Trials Best Practices tool constitute the reference user manual. CONCLUSIONS: This publication is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the EU-PEARL suite of templates for designing IRPs. The reference user manual and the associated website ( http://www.eu-pearl ) should facilitate the designing of IRP trials.

The use of routinely collected healthcare records for outcome assessment in clinical trials: a UK perspective.

The use of routinely collected electronic healthcare records (EHR) for outcome assessment in clinical trials has been described as a 'disruptive' new technique more than a decade ago. Despite this potential, significant methodological issues and regulatory barriers have hampered the progress in this area. This article discusses the key considerations that trialists should take into account when incorporating EHR into their trials. These include considerations of the clinical relevance of the outcome, data timeliness and quality, ethical and regulatory issues, and some practical considerations for clinical trials units. In addition, this article describes the benefits of using EHR which include cost, reduced trial burden for participants and staff, follow up efficiencies, and improved health economic evaluation procedures. We also describe the major regulatory and start up costs of using EHR in clinical trials. This article focuses on the UK specific EHR landscape in clinical trials and would help researchers and trials units considering the use of this method of outcome data collection in their next trial. If the issues described are mitigated, this method will be a formidable tool for conducting pragmatic clinical trials.

Biofield therapies: Guidelines for reporting clinical trials.

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, e.g., External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONSORT 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

Quantifying Site Burden to Optimize Protocol Performance.

BACKGROUND: The increase in protocol complexity and the resulting rise in the effort required by investigative sites to implement protocols have been well documented, but existing measures of site burden only offer an incomplete view of the burden experienced by site personnel. The introduction of Decentralized Clinical Trials-trials supported by remote and virtual technologies and services-is expected to impact the burden imposed on sites, but this impact has not yet been systematically measured. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted an online survey among clinical research sites worldwide and gathered 355 responses assessing the burden associated with distinct activities and procedures related to the implementation of clinical trial protocols using traditional and decentralized approaches. RESULTS: A high percentage of investigative sites (50.5%) have had no experience with DCT solutions and only a small percentage (6.6%) have participated in fully decentralized clinical trials. Overall, half of respondents view DCT solutions as more burdensome than traditional clinical trials. In general, activities related to operational and managerial aspects of trial implementation were viewed as less burdensome when done remotely, while clinical procedures or elements that require study team-patient interactions were viewed as more burdensome when using DCT approaches versus in-person or traditional methods.

Practical Guidelines for Standardised Resolution of Important Protocol Deviations in Clinical Trials Conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa.

A clinical trial is any research on human subjects that involves an investigational medicinal product or device. Investigational medicinal products include unlicensed drugs or drugs used outside the product license (e.g. for a new indication) (ICH-GCP). As per the internationally accepted ICH-GCP guidelines, clinical trials should be conducted strictly per the approved protocol. However, during the lifecycle of a trial, protocol deviations may occur. Under ICH efficacy guidelines, protocol deviations are divided into non-important (minor) or important (major), and the latter can jeopardise the participant's rights, safety or the quality of data generated by the study. Existing guidelines on protocol deviation management do not detail or standardise actions to be taken for participants, investigational products, data or samples as part of a holistic management of important protocol deviations. Herein, we propose guidelines to address the current literature gap and promote the standardisation of actions to address important protocol deviations in clinical trials. The advised actions should complement the existing local institutional review board and national regulatory authority requirements.