scholarly journals A Framework and Road Map for Rapid Start-up and Completion of a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial: A Single Clinical Trial Site Experience

Author(s):  
Carlos Rojas ◽  
Stephen A. Spector ◽  
Bernadette Cale ◽  
Megan Loughran ◽  
Leander Lazaro ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Greene ◽  
Adrian F. Hernandez ◽  
Jie-Lena Sun ◽  
Marco Metra ◽  
Javed Butler ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1967.2-1967
Author(s):  
S. Sheikh ◽  
N. Wanty ◽  
S. Mccalla ◽  
A. Santana ◽  
S. Saxena Beem ◽  
...  

Background:In the US, African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented in lupus clinical trials (LCTs),1despite experiencing the greatest lupus disease burden.2,3Low participation in LCTs results in inadequate data on treatment effectiveness for minority patients, and fewer opportunities for better care and treatment options.1Only one percent of minority patients are referred to clinical trials each year.4Provider barriers to making referrals include limited time and unfamiliarity with lupus and LCT opportunities.4Using US fedral grant funds, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) developed MIMICT, a two-part model with associated materials to address provider-side LCT referral barriers. The materials include a toolkit for clinical trial sites and an educational toolkit for providers.Objectives:Our objectives are to:•Describe the US LCTs disparities.•Discuss the research methodology to evaluate the two-part MIMICT model.•Assess the feasibility of the model to increase minority involvement in clinical trials.Methods:We designed two studies to evaluate the MIMICT model.The first study used an online, pretest/posttest, two-group evaluation approach to assess the extent to which the educational toolkit increased providers‘ knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions to refer minority patients to clinical trial. We conducted the study in 2018 with primary care providers (PCPs) and again in 2019/2020 with speciality providers. The second study used a longitudinal, mised methods, case-study approach to explore the real-world use of the toolkits with clinical trial site teams at two university medical centers.Results:In the first study,among MIMCT-exposed PCPs, mean scores indicated statistical significance at p≤0.001 with more knowledge about referring [55.84 (sd=23.51) vs 41.76 (sd=19.98)], more self-efficacy to refer [55.00 (sd=37.22) vs. 37.99 (sd=34.42)], and more intentions to refer [61.36 (43.85) vs. 33.41 (41.16)] African American patients to LCTs among the treatment group than the control group, respectively. This presentation will discuss additional data comparing the study in 2018 and the study in 2019/2020 and look comparatively at outcomes across provider type.In the second study, we found that the driver for successful engagemetn of providers and their subsequent use of the educational toolkit was the development of a trusting relationship between the clinical trial site teams and providers in the community. The development of trust took repeated and varied modes of contact, which we will discuss in-depth.Conclusion:The MIMICT educational toolkit increase knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer lupus patients to LCTs. However, building trust between LCT sites and local providers takes time and repeated outreach, but the potential benefits to medicine and minority health are substantial.References:[1]The Society for Women’s Health Research. (2011). Dialogues on diversifying clinical trials: successful strategies for engaging women and minorities in clinical trials. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, Office of Women’s Health.[2]Falasinnu, T., Chaichian, Y., Bass, M. B., & Simard, J. F. (2018). The representation of gender and race/ethnic groups in randomized clinical trials of individuals with sytemic lupus erythematosus.Current Rheumatology Reports, 20(4).[3]Pons-Estel, G. J., Alarcon, G. S., Scofield, L., Reinlib, L., & Cooper, G. S. (2010). Understanding the epidemiological progression of systemic lupus erythematosus.Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 39(4).[4]Korieth, K. (2016). Engaging healthcare providers as research facilitators.The CenterWatch Monthly, 23,1-5.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1131-1138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Musyoki ◽  
Khutso Mothapo ◽  
Johnny Rakgole ◽  
Azwidowi Lukhwareni ◽  
Pascal Bessong ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00821
Author(s):  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia Hurley ◽  
David M. Waterhouse ◽  
Nicholas J. Robert ◽  
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document