e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. METHODS: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April–June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. RESULTS: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. CONCLUSION: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent

Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibodies in saliva following concomitant COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in the ComFluCOV trial

The ComFluCOV trial randomized 679 participants to receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine, or placebo, alongside their second COVID-19 vaccine. Concomitant administration was shown to be safe, and to preserve systemic immune responses to both vaccines. Here we report on a secondary outcome of the trial investigating SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibody responses. Anti-spike IgG and IgA levels in saliva were measured with in-house ELISAs. Concomitant administration of an influenza vaccine did not affect salivary anti-spike IgG positivity rates to Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (99.1 cf. 95.6%), or AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (67.8% cf. 64.9%), at 3-weeks post-vaccination relative to placebo. Furthermore, saliva IgG positively correlated with serum titres highlighting the potential utility of saliva for assessing differences in immunogenicity in future vaccine studies. Mucosal IgA was not detected in response to either COVID-19 vaccine, reinforcing the need for novel vaccines capable of inducing sterilising immunity or otherwise reducing transmission. The trial is registered as ISRCTN 14391248

Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials : A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously

The PROMoting THE Use of SWATs (PROMETHEUS) programme was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) [grant number MR/R013748/1]. The DISC host trial is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 15/102/04). IntAct is funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership (Grant Ref: 14/150/62). The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland and Health and Care Research Wales and the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. PROFHER-2 is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 16/73/03). START: REACTS is funded by the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Co-ordinating Centre (NETSCC); Grant Codes: 16/61/18. The development of the training intervention was funded by the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (MR/L004933/1- R53) and supported by the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomized controlled Trials In Invasive procedures - MR/K025643/1). The online version of the training intervention was funded by the NIHR and is hosted on the NIHR Learn platform (https://learn.nihr.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=385). It is based on the face-to face GRANULE training course funded by the Bowel Disease Research Foundation in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, University of Bristol and former MRC ConDuCT-II Hub. This work was part-funded by the Wellcome Trust [ref: 204829] through the Centre for Future Health (CFH) at the University of York. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the MRC or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

PROMoting the use of studies within a trial (PROMETHEUS): results and experiences from a large programme to evaluate the routine embedding of recruitment and retention strategies within randomised controlled trials routinely

Aim PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) aimed to improve the evidence base for recruiting and retaining participants in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) by pump-priming and facilitating the start of at least 25 Studies Within A Trial (SWATs) testing recruitment or retention interventions. Methods Ten Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) and one Primary Care Research Centre formed a network to conduct randomised SWATs of recruitment and/or retention strategies. We identified promising recruitment and retention interventions from various sources, which were reviewed by patient and public (PPI) partners to generate an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement, and report SWATs. We additionally tested the feasibility of undertaking coordinated SWATs across multiple host trials simultaneously. Results PROMETHEUS funded 42 SWATs, embedded within 31 host trials, across 12 CTUs. The SWAT cost per SWAT was £3535. Of the 42 SWATs, 12 tested the same SWAT in multiple trials (simultaneous SWAT design) and eight tested a factorial SWAT design. PROMETHEUS will add 18% and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies and the Cochrane review of retention strategies respectively. Conclusion The PROMETHEUS programme substantially increased the evidence base for both recruitment and retention strategies within RCTs. Future research should adopt a systematic approach to identifying and targeting gaps in the evidence base and focus on translating SWAT evidence into recruitment and retention practice

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. Methods: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April–June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. Results: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. Conclusion: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent