Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality.

PURPOSE: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS: This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION: Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Phase II Evaluation of Desipramine for the Treatment of Hot Flashes.

PURPOSE: Newer antidepressants with serotonergic effects reduce hot flashes significantly better than placebo. This pilot study was designed to test the efficacy of desipramine, an older antidepressant targeting norepinephrine, in women desiring therapy for hot flashes and to evaluate the toxicity of desipramine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this nonrandomized trial, eligible women were required to have reported >/= 14 bothersome hot flashes per week for >/= 1 month. After an Initials baseline week in which no study medication was taken, participants started with desipramine 25 mg daily, which was titrated to100 mg daily by week 5. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hot flash frequency and hot flash score. Statistical methods involved paired t tests for continuous variables and Fisher exact tests for categoric variables. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled on this study between March 2004 and November 2005. The decrease in mean hot flash frequency over 4 weeks of treatment was 23%, with a 31% reduction in hot flash scores. Seven patients (30%) withdrew early because of toxicities consisting of insomnia, nausea, headaches, and/or feeling frightened. CONCLUSION: Desipramine did not reduce hot flashes beyond the 25%-30% reduction that would be expected with placebo, based on previous work. Therefore, data from this trial do not support further study of this agent for treatment of hot flashes. It is of physiologic interest that this older antidepressant, classified as a tricyclic, did not achieve a clinically significant reduction in hot flash scores in this pilot trial.