Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Complex socio-cultural, psychological, geographical, and service-related challenges are faced when recruiting people with dementia for clinical trials. The aim of Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) project was to assess the feasibility of recruiting (identifying, approaching and consenting) people with dementia, including those without capacity to consent, to a cluster randomized controlled trial of a primary care-based personalized dementia support intervention in England. COVID-19 necessitated a shift to remote working, creating the opportunity to compare recruitment strategies before and under lockdown constraints. This paper shares the adaptations made to enable remote consent and capacity judgement with people with dementia, as well as lessons learned. Methods Consent was conducted in person from September 2019 to March 2020. Remote consent was implemented from September 2020 to March 2021 after an enforced pause. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Recruitment rates (proportion consented from eligible patients approached), mean monthly consent rates, and time spent on consent-related activities (tasks before and after consent/capacity-judgment meetings, miscellaneous tasks, travel) were compared. Participant experiences with remote recruitment were examined through thematic analysis of qualitative interviews. Results Pre-COVID-19, 22 participants (9.9%) out of 228 approached were consented in person. During the pandemic, 19 participants (9.6%) out of 198 were consented remotely, excluding 15 participants initially approached pre-pandemic and later consented via remote means. Mean monthly consent rates increased from 3.6 (in person) to 5.6 (remote). However, remote consent required more time (mean 14 researcher-hours per participant vs. 9 in person), with 75% of time spent on consent-related tasks compared to 20% in person. Travel accounted for 40% of in-person consent time. Interviews (n = 13) showed general acceptability of remote processes. However pre-consent information was perceived as excessive and led some participants to skim materials, potentially reducing understanding. Conclusions While remote consent is time-intensive, it achieves comparable rates (proportion consented/total approached) to in-person methods and higher monthly consent rates. A flexible, hybrid approach can enhance participation, offer choice, and increase person-centredness. Realistic planning for time and resources is crucial for inclusive dementia research. Funders should support these needs to ensure effective recruitment. Trial registration ISRCTN80204146.

Background Use of electronic methods to support informed consent (‘eConsent’) is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system’s generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Abstract Objective Despite advances in ALK inhibitors for ALK fusion-positive (ALK+) non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), drug resistance remains a challenge. Studies of treatment outcomes and resistance biomarkers are imperative for drug development, yet patient representation can be limited. This study evaluated the feasibility of a decentralized research infrastructure to establish a clinical and biospecimen repository, broadening patient access and inclusion. Patients and methods Patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC across the United States were enrolled through remote informed consent. Clinical history and tumor molecular profiling data were collected at baseline and during remote follow-ups. Archival tumor and saliva biospecimens (for germline sampling) were obtained for analysis. Results Of 87 eligible patients, 80 (92%) completed remote consent and enrolled. The clinical data collection rate was 100%, with archival tumor acquired from 80% and saliva samples from 65%. Patients represented 31 states, with 94% residing outside the study center’s state and 90% receiving care elsewhere. Next-generation sequencing was conducted on 55 treatment-naïve and 18 treatment-resistant biopsies, all of whom received at least one prior second-generation ALK inhibitor, and 9 received lorlatinib. ALK resistance mutations were identified in 54% of treatment-resistant biopsies; other commonly co-altered genes included TP53 (18%) and CDKN2A/B (16%). Conclusions This study highlights the feasibility of a decentralized design to enhance the inclusion of a broader patient population with ALK+ NSCLC. This establishes a scalable framework that may help overcome barriers to patient participation in research, with the goal of improving therapy development and patient outcomes. The Elucidating Novel Immune and Genomic Markers for ALK+ study accrual and analysis continue (NCT04881916).

Background As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. Methods The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). Results Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. Conclusions COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. Trial registration ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in hospitalised patients and is associated with adverse long-term consequences. There is an urgent need to understand these sequelae in general hospitalised patients utilising a prospective cohort-based approach. We aimed to test the feasibility of study methodology prior to commencing a large-scale study and investigate the effects of AKI on chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and proteinuria. Methods: Pilot study testing novel methodology for remote patient recruitment within a prospective case-control design. 300 cases (hospitalised patients with AKI) and controls (hospitalised patients without AKI) were matched 1:1 for age and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). 70% of cases had AKI stage 1, 16% AKI stage 2 and 14% AKI stage 3. Renal function and proteinuria were measured 3 and 12 months after hospital admission. Results: The study met pre-defined recruitment, withdrawal and matching criteria. Renal function was worse in the AKI group at 3 (eGFR 61 ± 20 vs. 74 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.001) and 12 months (eGFR 64 ± 23 vs. 75 ± 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.001). More cases than controls had CKD progression at 3 months (14 vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001). This difference persisted to 12 months, but there was no significant change between 3 and 12 months. Proteinuria and albuminuria were more prevalent in the AKI group and associated with CKD progression. Conclusions: We describe a method of remote patient recruitment which could be employed more widely for prospective observational studies. Even mild AKI is associated with long-term renal dysfunction. Further investigation using this methodology is now underway. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

The high incidence and poor short-term outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) have focused attention on this global healthcare issue. Concurrently, the long-term effects of AKI are increasingly appreciated, namely, increased risk of subsequent chronic kidney disease, end stage kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapies and a higher rate of cardiovascular events. Whilst there is little doubt about the strength of these associations, knowledge gaps remain. To address some of these, the AKI Risk In Derby study commenced in 2013. This is a prospective case-control study investigating the long-term effects of AKI in a general hospitalized population (including those with less severe AKI). This review will summarize the background and rationale of this study, its design and methodology, as well as the 1-year outcome results from a preceding pilot study.

Background: Digitalization in the health system is a topic that is rapidly gaining popularity, and not only because of the current pandemic. As in many areas of daily life, digitalization is becoming increasingly important in the medical field amid the exponential rise in the use of computers and smartphones. This opens up new possibilities for optimizing patient education in the context of anesthesia. The main aim of this study was to assess the implementation of remote consent in Europe. Methods: An online survey entitled “Digital online Patient Informed Consent for Anesthesia before Elective Surgery. Recent practice in Europe,” with a total of 27 questions, was sent by the European Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) to their members in 47 European countries. To assess the effect of the economy on digitalization and legal status with regard to anesthesia consent, data were stratified based on gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC). Results: In total, 23.1% and 37.2% of the 930 participants indicated that it was possible to obtain consent online or via telephone, respectively. This observation was more often reported in countries with high GDPPC levels than in countries with low GDPPC levels. Furthermore, 27.3% of the responses for simple anesthesia, 18.7% of the responses for complex anesthesia, and 32.2% of the responses for repeated anesthesia indicated that remote consent was in accordance with the law, and this was especially prevalent in countries with high GDPPC. Concerning the timing of consent, patients were informed at least one day before in 67.1% of cases for simple procedures and in 85.2% of cases for complex procedures. Conclusion: Even European countries with high GDPPC use remote informed consent only in a minority of cases, and most of the time for repeated anesthetic procedures. This might reflect the inconsistent legal situation and inhomogeneous medical technical structures across Europe.

Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II–IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II–IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74–1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80–1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70–1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61–0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. Abbott.

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or “hybrid” trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.

Patient autonomy through informed consent is a foundational ethical principle for health care practitioners. Online consent processes risk producing \"consent in name only,\" using manipulative or confusing user interfaces to extract consent artificially. This presents a significant danger for safe and ethical remote consultations for primary care providers, which often extract significant amounts of sensitive personal data. This study aims to examine the quality of consent obtained through both currently used and novel consent acquisition interfaces for remote e-consultations between a patient and a primary care provider. A total of 55 adult participants in the United Kingdom completed an interaction with a mock-up e-consultation system's consent interface for data processing, with 54 completing the full study protocol. The participants were then asked questions regarding what they had provided consent for and the usability of the interface. These responses led to the calculation of an industry-standard System Usability Scale (SUS) score and a novel Quality of Informed Consent Collected Digitally (QuICCDig) score. Users perceiving interfaces to be more usable (with a greater SUS score) were statistically significantly (n=54; P=.004) correlated with an increase in the quality of consent collected from those users (with a higher QuICCDig score). Nonetheless, both existing and novel user interfaces for collecting e-consultation consent were rated poorly, achieving a maximum SUS letter grade of \"F.\" In total, 45% (25/55) of all the participants reported not recalling making a privacy-related decision at all during their consultation, and 87% (48/55) did not recall being offered any alternatives to e-consultation. The findings demonstrate that current methods for collecting consent in telemedical applications may not be fit for purpose and potentially fail to collect valid informed consent. However, increased usability scores from users do appear to drive improvements in the quality of consent collected. Therefore, decision-makers should place importance on high-quality interface design when building or procuring these systems. We have also provided the QuICCDig score for further use.