A cross-sectional survey on the early impact of COVID-19 on the uptake of decentralised trial methods in the conduct of clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the conduct of clinical trials through delay, interruption or cancellation. Decentralised methods in clinical trials could help to continue trials during a pandemic. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study conducted early in the pandemic to gain insight into and describe the experiences of organisations involved in clinical trials, with regard to the impact of COVID-19 on the conduct of trials, and the adoption of decentralised methods prior to, and as mitigation for the impact, of COVID-19. METHODS: A survey with 11 open-ended and four multiple choice questions was conducted in June 2020 among member organisations of the public-private “Trials@Home” consortium. The survey investigated (1) the impact and challenges of COVID-19 on the continuation of ongoing clinical trials, (2) the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials prior to and as a mitigation strategy for COVID-19, (3) the challenges of conducting clinical trials during COVID-19, (4) the expected permanency of COVID-19-driven changes to the adoption of decentralised methods in clinical trials, and (5) lessons learned from conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. A thematic, inductive analysis of open survey questions was performed, complemented with descriptive statistics (frequencies and distributions). RESULTS: The survey had a response rate of 81%. All organisations included in the analysis (n = 18) implemented (some) decentralised methods in their clinical trials prior to COVID-19, and 15 (83%) implemented decentralised methods as mitigation for COVID-19. Decentralised methods for IMP supply, patient-health care provider interaction and communication, clinic visits and source document verification were used more often as mitigation strategies than they were used prior to COVID-19. Many respondents expect to maintain those decentralised methods they implemented during COVID-19 in ongoing trials, as well as implement them in future trials. CONCLUSIONS: Decentralised methods are a widely implemented mitigation strategy for trial conduct in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey show that there is an interest to continue the use of decentralised methods in future trials, but important points of attention have been identified that need solutions to help guide the transition from the traditional trial model to a more decentralised trial model. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06706-x

Overcoming ethical and legal obstacles to data linkage in health research: stakeholder perspectives

Introduction Data linkage for health research purposes enables the answering of countless new research questions, is said to be cost effective and less intrusive than other means of data collection. Nevertheless, health researchers are currently dealing with a complicated, fragmented, and inconsistent regulatory landscape with regard to the processing of data, and progress in health research is hindered. Aim We designed a qualitative study to assess what different stakeholders perceive as ethical and legal obstacles to data linkage for health research purposes, and how these obstacles could be overcome. Methods Two focus groups and eighteen semi-structured in-depth interviews were held to collect opinions and insights of various stakeholders. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify overarching themes. Results This study showed that the ambiguity regarding the `correct' interpretation of the law, the fragmentation of policies governing the processing of personal health data, and the demandingness of legal requirements are experienced as causes for the impediment of data linkage for research purposes by the participating stakeholders. To remove or reduce these obstacles authoritative interpretations of the laws and regulations governing data linkage should be issued. The participants furthermore encouraged the harmonisation of data linkage policies, as well as promoting trust and transparency and the enhancement of technical and organisational measures. Lastly, there is a demand for legislative and regulatory modifications amongst the participants. Conclusions To overcome the obstacles in data linkage for scientific research purposes, perhaps we should shift the focus from adapting the current laws and regulations governing data linkage, or even designing completely new laws, towards creating a more thorough understanding of the law and making better use of the flexibilities within the existing legislation. Important steps in achieving this shift could be clarification of the legal provisions governing data linkage by issuing authoritative interpretations, as well as the strengthening of ethical-legal oversight bodies

Prescription of respiratory medication without an asthma diagnosis in children: a population based study

Background. In pre-school children a diagnosis of asthma is not easily made and only a minority of wheezing children will develop persistent atopic asthma. According to the general consensus a diagnosis of asthma becomes more certain with increasing age. Therefore the congruence between asthma medication use and doctor-diagnosed asthma is expected to increase with age. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between prescribing of asthma medication and doctor-diagnosed asthma in children age 0-17. Methods. We studied all 74,580 children below 18 years of age, belonging to 95 GP practices within the second Dutch national survey of general practice (DNSGP-2), in which GPs registered all physician-patient contacts during the year 2001. Status on prescribing of asthma medication (at least one prescription for beta2-agonists, inhaled corticosteroids, cromones or montelukast) and doctor-diagnosed asthma (coded according to the International Classification of Primary Care) was determined. Results. In total 7.5% of children received asthma medication and 4.1% had a diagnosis of asthma. Only 49% of all children receiving asthma medication was diagnosed as an asthmatic. Subgroup analyses on age, gender and therapy groups showed that the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) differs significantly between therapy groups only. The likelihood of having doctor-diagnosed asthma increased when a child received combination therapy of short acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (PPV = 0.64) and with the number of prescriptions (3 prescriptions or more, PPV = 0.66). Both prescribing of asthma medication and doctor-diagnosed asthma declined with age but the congruence between the two measures did not increase with age. Conclusion. In this study, less than half of all children receiving asthma medication had a registered diagnosis of asthma. Detailed subgroup analyses show that a diagnosis of asthma was present in at most 66%, even in groups of children treated intensively with asthma medication. Although age strongly influences the chance of being treated, remarkably, the congruence between prescribing of asthma medication and doctor-diagnosed asthma does not increase with age

The social value of pragmatic trials

Pragmatic trials aim to directly inform health care decision-making through the collection of so-called ‘real world data’ from observations of comparative treatment effects in clinical practice. In order to ensure the applicability and feasibility of a pragmatic trial, design features may be necessary that deviate from standard research ethics requirements. Examples are traditional requirements to seek written informed consent and to perform extensive data and safety monitoring. Proposals for deviations from standard research ethics practice have resulted in controversy about their ethical acceptability. One of the justifications for altered procedures is the allegedly high social value of pragmatic trials. In order to properly operationalize the concept in the ethical assessment of pragmatic trial designs, specification is warranted. We identified three determinants from common claims about a pragmatic trial’s social value: (1) the extent to which the research question has real world relevance, (2) the trial design’s ability to generate a real world answer and (3) the probability of direct uptake of the results by decision-makers in practice. Subsequently, we discuss how these determinants should be applied to the practice of pragmatic trials, and to what extent they might be applicable to explanatory trials

The social value of pragmatic trials

Pragmatic trials aim to directly inform health care decision-making through the collection of so-called ‘real world data’ from observations of comparative treatment effects in clinical practice. In order to ensure the applicability and feasibility of a pragmatic trial, design features may be necessary that deviate from standard research ethics requirements. Examples are traditional requirements to seek written informed consent and to perform extensive data and safety monitoring. Proposals for deviations from standard research ethics practice have resulted in controversy about their ethical acceptability. One of the justifications for altered procedures is the allegedly high social value of pragmatic trials. In order to properly operationalize the concept in the ethical assessment of pragmatic trial designs, specification is warranted. We identified three determinants from common claims about a pragmatic trial’s social value: (1) the extent to which the research question has real world relevance, (2) the trial design’s ability to generate a real world answer and (3) the probability of direct uptake of the results by decision-makers in practice. Subsequently, we discuss how these determinants should be applied to the practice of pragmatic trials, and to what extent they might be applicable to explanatory trials

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence : Paper 8 Data collection and management Data collection in Pragmatic Trials

Pragmatic trials can improve our understanding of how treatments will perform in routine practice. In a series of eight papers, the GetReal Consortium has evaluated the challenges in designing and conducting pragmatic trials and their specific methodological, operational, regulatory and ethical implications. The present final paper of the series discusses the operational and methodological challenges of data collection in pragmatic trials. A more pragmatic data collection needs to balance the delivery of highly accurate and complete data with minimizing the level of interference that data entry and verification induce with clinical practice. Further it should allow for the involvement of a representative sample of practices, physicians and patients who prescribe/receive treatment in routine care. This paper discusses challenges that are related to the different methods of data collection and presents potential solutions where possible. No one-size-fits-all recommendation can be given for the collection of data in pragmatic trials, although in general the application of existing routinely used data collection systems and processes seem to best suit the pragmatic approach. However, data access and privacy, the time points of data collection, the level of detail in the data and the lack of a clear understanding of the data collection process were identified as main challenges for the usage of routinely collected data in pragmatic trials. A first step should be to determine to what extend existing healthcare databases provide the necessary study data and can accommodate data collection and management. When more elaborate or detailed data collection or more structured follow-up is required, data collection in a pragmatic trial will have to be tailor-made, often using a hybrid approach utilizing a dedicated electronic case report form (eCRF). In this case the eCRF should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the burden for practitioners and minimize influence on routine clinical practice

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence : Paper 1. Introduction

This is the introductory paper in a series of eight papers. In this series, we integrate the theoretical design options with the practice of conducting pragmatic trials. For most new market-approved treatments, the clinical evidence is insufficient to fully guide physicians and policy makers in choosing the optimal treatment for their patients. Pragmatic trials can fill this gap, by providing evidence on the relative effectiveness of a treatment strategy in routine clinical practice, already in an early phase of development, while maintaining the strength of randomized controlled trials. Selecting the setting, study population, mode of intervention, comparator, and outcome are crucial in designing pragmatic trials. In combination with monitoring and data collection that does not change routine care, this will enable appropriate generalization to the target patient group in clinical practice. To benefit from the full potential of pragmatic trials, there is a need for guidance and tools in designing these studies while ensuring operational feasibility. This paper introduces the concept of pragmatic trial design. The complex interplay between pragmatic design options, feasibility, stakeholder acceptability, validity, precision, and generalizability will be clarified. In this way, balanced design choices can be made in pragmatic trials with an optimal chance of success in practice

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence : Paper 5. Usual care and real life comparators.

Pragmatic trials may deliver real world evidence on the added value of new medications compared to usual care and inform decision making earlier in development. This 5(th) paper in a series on pragmatic trials in the Journal discusses usual care as a comparator and the allocation of treatment strategies. The allocation and implementation of treatment strategies should resemble clinical practice as closely as possible. Randomization at the level of the site, as opposed to at the individual level, may be preferred. Data analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle is recommended, and crossover between treatment arms and strong treatment preferences may be accounted for in the study design in specific situations. Although usual care is the comparator of choice, this may differ substantially between centres and countries complicating comparator choice. Using clinical guidelines to define usual care can be helpful in standardizing comparator treatments, however, this may decrease the applicability of the results to real life settings. Conversely, using multiple usual care treatment arms will increase the complexity of the study. The specific objectives of the trial and design choices should be discussed with all stakeholders to realize the full potential of the pragmatic trial