A framework for assessing clinical trial site readiness

Clinical trial processes are unnecessarily inefficient and costly, slowing the translation of medical discoveries into treatments for people living with disease. To reduce redundancies and inefficiencies, a group of clinical trial experts developed a framework for clinical trial site readiness based on existing trial site qualifications from sponsors. The site readiness practices are encompassed within six domains: research team, infrastructure, study management, data collection and management, quality oversight, and ethics and safety. Implementation of this framework for clinical trial sites would reduce inefficiencies in trial conduct and help prepare new sites to enter the clinical trials enterprise, with the potential to improve the reach of clinical trials to underserved communities. Moreover, the framework holds benefits for trial sponsors, contract research organizations, trade associations, trial participants, and the public. For novice sites considering future trials, we provide a framework for site preparation and the engagement of stakeholders. For experienced sites, the framework can be used to assess current practices and inform and engage sponsors, staff, and participants. Details in the supplementary materials provide easy access to key regulatory documents and resources. Invited perspective articles provide greater depth from a systems, DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) and decentralized trials perspective

PROPHETIC: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the leading infection-related cause of death. Using simple clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology to identify patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia should enhance prevention efforts and facilitate development of new treatments in clinical trials. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology trends helpful in identifying patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Within the intensive care units of 28 United States hospitals, we conducted a prospective cohort study among adults hospitalized more than 48 hours and considered high risk for pneumonia (defined as treatment with invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support or high levels of supplemental oxygen). We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing nosocomial pneumonia. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified patient characteristics and treatment exposures associated with increased risk of pneumonia development during the intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: Between February 6, 2016 and October 7, 2016, 4613 high-risk patients were enrolled. Among 1464/4613 (32%) high-risk patients treated for possible nosocomial pneumonia, 537/1464 (37%) met the study pneumonia definition. Among high-risk patients, a multivariable logistic model was developed to identify key patient characteristics and treatment exposures associated with increased risk of nosocomial pneumonia development (c-statistic 0.709, 95% confidence interval 0.686 to 0.731). Key factors associated with increased odds of nosocomial pneumonia included an admission diagnosis of trauma or cerebrovascular accident, receipt of enteral nutrition, documented aspiration risk, and receipt of systemic antibacterials within the preceding 90 days. INTERPRETATION: Treatment for nosocomial pneumonia is common among intensive care unit patients receiving high levels of respiratory support, yet more than half of patients treated do not fulfill standard diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. Application of simple clinical criteria may improve the feasibility of clinical trials of pneumonia prevention and treatment by facilitating prospective identification of patients at highest risk

PROPHETIC EU: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit in European and United States Cohorts

Background The prospective identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia may improve clinical trial feasibility and foster antibacterial development. In a prior study conducted in the United States, clinical criteria were used to prospectively identify these patients; however, these criteria have not been applied in a European population. Methods Adults considered high risk for pneumonia (treatment with ventilation or high levels of supplemental oxygen) in the intensive care units of 7 European hospitals were prospectively enrolled from June 12 to December 27, 2017. We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing pneumonia according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance and a subset potentially eligible for antibacterial trial enrollment. We compared patient characteristics, treatment exposures, and pneumonia incidence in a European cohort and a previously described US cohort. Results Of 888 high-risk patients, 211/888 (24%) were treated for possible pneumonia, and 150/888 (17%) met the Food and Drug Administration definition for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. A higher proportion of European patients treated for possible pneumonia met the pneumonia definition (150/211 [71%] vs 537/1464 [37%]; P < .001). Among patients developing pneumonia, a higher proportion of European patients met antibacterial trial eligibility criteria (124/150 [83%] vs 371/537 [69%]; P < .001). Conclusions Clinical criteria prospectively identified high-risk patients with high rates of pneumonia in the European cohort. Despite higher rates of established risk factors and incident pneumonia, European patients were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics for possible pneumonia than US patients. Different treatment practices may contribute to lower rates of antibacterial trial enrollment in the United States

Streamlining safety data collection in hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia trials: recommendations of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Antibacterial Drug Development Project Team

Resistant bacteria are one of the leading causes of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). HABP/VABP trials are complex and difficult to conduct due to the large number of medical procedures, adverse events, and concomitant medications involved. Differences in the legislative frameworks between different regions of the world may also lead to excessive data collection. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) seeks to advance antibacterial drug development (ABDD) by streamlining clinical trials to improve efficiency and feasibility while maintaining ethical rigor, patient safety, information value, and scientific validity. In 2013, CTTI engaged a multidisciplinary group of experts to discuss challenges impeding the conduct of HABP/VABP trials. Separate workstreams identified challenges associated with current data collection processes. Experts defined "data collection" as the act of capturing and reporting certain data on the case report form as opposed to recording of data as part of routine clinical care. The ABDD Project Team developed strategies for streamlining safety data collection in HABP/VABP trials using a Quality by Design approach.Current safety data collection processes in HABP/VABP trials often include extraneous information. More targeted strategies for safety data collection in HABP/VABP trials will rely on optimal protocol design and prespecification of which safety data are essential to satisfy regulatory reporting requirements.A consensus and a cultural change in clinical trial design and conduct, which involve recognition of the need for more efficient data collection, are urgently needed to advance ABDD and to improve HABP/VABP trials in particular

Streamlining safety data collection in hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia trials: recommendations of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Antibacterial Drug Development Project Team

Resistant bacteria are one of the leading causes of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). HABP/VABP trials are complex and difficult to conduct due to the large number of medical procedures, adverse events, and concomitant medications involved. Differences in the legislative frameworks between different regions of the world may also lead to excessive data collection. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) seeks to advance antibacterial drug development (ABDD) by streamlining clinical trials to improve efficiency and feasibility while maintaining ethical rigor, patient safety, information value, and scientific validity. In 2013, CTTI engaged a multidisciplinary group of experts to discuss challenges impeding the conduct of HABP/VABP trials. Separate workstreams identified challenges associated with current data collection processes. Experts defined "data collection" as the act of capturing and reporting certain data on the case report form as opposed to recording of data as part of routine clinical care. The ABDD Project Team developed strategies for streamlining safety data collection in HABP/VABP trials using a Quality by Design approach.Current safety data collection processes in HABP/VABP trials often include extraneous information. More targeted strategies for safety data collection in HABP/VABP trials will rely on optimal protocol design and prespecification of which safety data are essential to satisfy regulatory reporting requirements.A consensus and a cultural change in clinical trial design and conduct, which involve recognition of the need for more efficient data collection, are urgently needed to advance ABDD and to improve HABP/VABP trials in particular

Digitizing clinical trials.

Clinical trials are a fundamental tool used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new drugs and medical devices and other health system interventions. The traditional clinical trials system acts as a quality funnel for the development and implementation of new drugs, devices and health system interventions. The concept of a "digital clinical trial" involves leveraging digital technology to improve participant access, engagement, trial-related measurements, and/or interventions, enable concealed randomized intervention allocation, and has the potential to transform clinical trials and to lower their cost. In April 2019, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) held a workshop bringing together experts in clinical trials, digital technology, and digital analytics to discuss strategies to implement the use of digital technologies in clinical trials while considering potential challenges. This position paper builds on this workshop to describe the current state of the art for digital clinical trials including (1) defining and outlining the composition and elements of digital trials; (2) describing recruitment and retention using digital technology; (3) outlining data collection elements including mobile health, wearable technologies, application programming interfaces (APIs), digital transmission of data, and consideration of regulatory oversight and guidance for data security, privacy, and remotely provided informed consent; (4) elucidating digital analytics and data science approaches leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms; and (5) setting future priorities and strategies that should be addressed to successfully harness digital methods and the myriad benefits of such technologies for clinical research

Digitizing clinical trials

Abstract Clinical trials are a fundamental tool used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new drugs and medical devices and other health system interventions. The traditional clinical trials system acts as a quality funnel for the development and implementation of new drugs, devices and health system interventions. The concept of a “digital clinical trial” involves leveraging digital technology to improve participant access, engagement, trial-related measurements, and/or interventions, enable concealed randomized intervention allocation, and has the potential to transform clinical trials and to lower their cost. In April 2019, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) held a workshop bringing together experts in clinical trials, digital technology, and digital analytics to discuss strategies to implement the use of digital technologies in clinical trials while considering potential challenges. This position paper builds on this workshop to describe the current state of the art for digital clinical trials including (1) defining and outlining the composition and elements of digital trials; (2) describing recruitment and retention using digital technology; (3) outlining data collection elements including mobile health, wearable technologies, application programming interfaces (APIs), digital transmission of data, and consideration of regulatory oversight and guidance for data security, privacy, and remotely provided informed consent; (4) elucidating digital analytics and data science approaches leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms; and (5) setting future priorities and strategies that should be addressed to successfully harness digital methods and the myriad benefits of such technologies for clinical research

Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ): Recommendations for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training for investigators and study coordinators

Introduction The translation of discoveries to drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions requires well-prepared study teams. Execution of clinical trials remains suboptimal due to varied quality in design, execution, analysis, and reporting. A critical impediment is inconsistent, or even absent, competency-based training for clinical trial personnel. Methods In 2014, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) funded the project, Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ), aimed at addressing this deficit. The goal was to ensure all personnel are competent to execute clinical trials. A phased structure was utilized. Results This paper focuses on training recommendations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Leveraging input from all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, the following was recommended to NCATS: all investigators and study coordinators executing a clinical trial should understand GCP principles and undergo training every 3 years, with the training method meeting the minimum criteria identified by the International Conference on Harmonisation GCP. Conclusions We anticipate that industry sponsors will acknowledge such training, eliminating redundant training requests. We proposed metrics to be tracked that required further study. A separate task force was composed to define recommendations for metrics to be reported to NCATS

Education and training of clinical and translational study investigators and research coordinators: A competency-based approach

Introduction Training for the clinical research workforce does not sufficiently prepare workers for today's scientific complexity; deficiencies may be ameliorated with training. The Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications developed competency standards for principal investigators and clinical research coordinators. Methods Clinical and Translational Science Awards representatives refined competency statements. Working groups developed assessments, identified training, and highlighted gaps. Results Forty-eight competency statements in 8 domains were developed. Conclusions Training is primarily investigator focused with few programs for clinical research coordinators. Lack of training is felt in new technologies and data management. There are no standardized assessments of competence