Abstract 16910: High-Frequency In-Person Visits During Clinical Trial Enrollment is Associated With Relative Reduction in Event Rates in Heart Failure Patients Followed Longitudinally

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liana C Brooks ◽  
Rohan R Bhat ◽  
Robyn F Farrell ◽  
Mark W Schoenike ◽  
John A Sbarbaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Trial Period ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Hospitalization Rates ◽  
Visit Frequency ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Event Rates

Introduction: The COVID-19 Pandemic has mandated limiting routine visit frequency for patients with chronic cardiovascular (CV) diseases. In patients with heart failure (HF) followed longitudinally, the period of clinical trial participation provides an opportunity to evaluate the influence of high-frequency per-protocol in-person visits compared to less frequent routine visits during longitudinal clinical care. Hypothesis: Patients enrolled in clinical trials will have a lower CV and HF event rates during periods of trial enrollment than during non-trial periods. Methods: We examined clinical characteristics, CV and HF hospitalization rates, and outcomes in patients with HF receiving longitudinal HF care at a single center. We evaluated hospitalization rates during the 1-year preceding trial enrollment and hospitalization and death rates during enrollment in clinical trials and for up to 1 year following trial completion. Results: Among the 121 patients enrolled in HF clinical trials, 72% were HFrEF (age 62±11, 19% females, BMI 30.4±6.0, LVEF 25±7, NYHA 2.7±0.6, NT-proBNP 2336±2671) and 28% were HFpEF (age 69±9, BMI 32.1±5.5, 29% females, LVEF 60±10, NYHA 2.4±0.5, NT-proBNP 957±997). Average clinical trial exposure was 8±6.6 months. Per-protocol visit frequency was 16±7 per year during clinical trial enrollment. In the one-year pre-trial period, compared to the within-trial period, CV hospitalizations were 0.88/patient-year vs. 0.32/patient-year (p<0.001) and HF hospitalizations were 0.63/patient-year and 0.24/patient-year (p<0.001), with a mortality rate of 0.04/patient-year during trial participation. In the period of up-to 1 year following the end of trial enrollment CV and HF hospitalizations were intermediate at 0.51/patient-year and 0.27/patient-year with an annualized incremental mortality rate of 0.03/patient-year. Conclusion: In HF patients followed longitudinally at a single center, periods of clinical trial enrollment were associated with high visit frequency and lower CV and HF hospitalization rates. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trial enrollment and high-frequency visits for HF patients at a time when routine visit frequency is being carefully considered during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Disparities in clinical trials participation in a vertically integrated care delivery system.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
Ahmed Megahed ◽  
Gary L Buchschacher ◽  
Ngoc J. Ho ◽  
Reina Haque ◽  
Robert Michael Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Integrated Healthcare ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Asian Pacific

128 Background: Sparse data exists on the diversity clinical trial enrollment in community settings. This information is important to ensure equity of care and generalizability of results. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of members of an integrated healthcare system diagnosed with invasive malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) between 2013-2017 to examine demographics of the oncology population compared to those who enrolled in a clinical trial. Logistic regression was used to assess correlates of clinical trial participation, comparing general and screened samples to enrolled sample. Odds ratios were adjusted for gender, geocoded median household income, cancer type, and stage. Results: Of the 84,977 patients with a cancer diagnosis, N = 2606 were screened for clinical trial participation and consented, and of those N = 1372 enrolled. The percent of Latinx (25.8% vs 24.0%; OR 0.9? CI 0.72-1.05) and African American/Black (10.9% vs 11.1%; OR 0.92 CI 0.75-1.11) clinical trial participation mirrored that of the general oncology population, respectively using Non-Hispanic Whites as reference. Asian/Pacific Islander had equal odds of clinical trial enrollment (OR 1.08 CI 0.92-1.27). The enrolled population was younger than the general oncology population. Conclusions: This study suggests that in an integrated healthcare system with equal access to care, the clinical trials population is well representative of its general oncology population.[Table: see text]

Increasing participation in breast cancer research: (INSPIRE-BrC).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 53-53
Author(s):  
Brandi Robinson ◽  
Sandra M. Swain
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Lower Survival Rate ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
The Impact

53 Background: Increasing black patients’ participation in cancer clinical trials is particularly important because of the population’s lower survival rate. Accrual to clinical trials remains low among the general population (1 to 3%), with recruitment of blacks the lowest of all groups at 0.5 to 1.5%. Clinical trials are key to developing new methods to prevent, detect, and treat cancer. INSPIRE-BrC aims to increase trial participation rates among black patients with breast cancer and examine the relationship between the intervention and attitudes/beliefs on the decision to participate. Methods: A sample size of 123 black patients with breast cancer at five MedStar sites will view a 15 minute, culturally tailored video about clinical trials, which targets six cultural and attitudinal barriers to participation. A pre-test/post-test method is used to determine the impact of the video on three variables — likely participation in therapeutic clinical trials; attitudes toward therapeutic clinical trials (assessed based on the 6 barriers); and actual trial enrollment. Expected Findings: We hypothesize that the intervention will increase clinical trial enrollment compared to our 2012 clinical trial enrollment baseline rate of 6% (22/384) for black patients with breast cancer in five MedStar hospitals. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of black patients with breast cancer who agree to participate in a therapeutic clinical trial among those who sign consent to INSPIRE-BrC. Study findings have the potential to increase patient recruitment as a promising tool for rapid dissemination of a theory-driven, evidence-based model to enhance clinical trial accrual among black patients with cancer. [Table: see text]

The effects of clinical trials on improving breast cancer care at a single institution.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 198-198
Author(s):  
W. C. Dooley ◽  
J. Parker ◽  
J. Bong
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Banking ◽  
Breast Conservation ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Trial Participants

198 Background: We reported in 2011 at the Society of Surgical Oncology a 19 year retrospective at a single academic institution which identified practice differences between surgical oncologists and general surgeons which were associated with a significant survival advantage. Clinical trial participation was much higher amongst patients treated by a surgical oncologist. Methods: This is an IRB approved, retrospective review of all breast cancer patients receiving primary treatment at a single institution from 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2008. Details of pathology, surgical therapy, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy were compared between patients participating in clinical trials and those not participating. The specific trials were segregated as to type (tissue banking, therapeutic, prevention, etc.) to understand differential effects if any between type of trial participation. Results: During the time period, there were 1220 patients who received primary breast cancer treatment at this institution. The mean age was 55.6 and mean follow-up >40 months. Stage distribution was stage 0 - 16.8%, Stage 1 - 26.6%, Stage 2 - 33.1%, Stage 3 - 15.9%, and Stage 4 - 6.1%. Patients participating in any clinical trial numbered 468 and 752 participated in no clinical trials. Overall survival (clinical trial 98.8% vs. not in clinical trial 75.7%; p<0.0001). Overall the use of breast conservation was more likely in clinical trial participants (54.3% vs. 44.4%; p<0.0001). The completion of chemotherapy was more likely in clinical trial participants (52.4% vs. 49.5%; p=0.02).The successful completion of systemic therapies (chemo and hormonal) was more likely also (71.4% vs. 64.0%; p=0.009). The type of trial (tissue banking vs. therapeutic) had no effect on improved outcomes. Overall the best predictor of better outcomes was to be treated by a high volume clinical trial enrolling physician. Conclusions: High volume clinical trial enrollment is associated with the best overall treatment outcomes in breast cancer whether trials are directly related to therapeutic changes or not. Each individual in the breast center treating team can have dramatic effect on outcomes by improving their clinical trial enrollment and participation.

Effect on clinical trial participation by integration of a clinical pathway program into an electronic health record (EHR).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey J. Shamah ◽  
Thomas James Saphner
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Pathway ◽  
Capture Rate ◽  
Treatment Algorithm ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Decision Algorithm ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

167 Background: Patient enrollment to clinical trials is lower than desired. Even large organizations with extensive research support services have many barriers to recruitment and poor rates of enrollment. Barriers to clinical trial participation can be physician related, system related, or patient related. Physician related issues are the largest barrier to patient accrual. Physicians are often not aware that a trial may be available for a patient. While all initial patients are manually screened in our system, screening for subsequent lines of therapy are not. Provider awareness and appropriate patient identification are areas of potential improvement in a large, multisite, hospital affiliated, community oncology setting. Methods: Our oncology group recently implemented Via Oncology (Via), an EHR-integrated clinical pathway decision support tool. Information about the patient, their disease, and goals of care generate a recommended treatment algorithm. The pathways are expected to speed the integration of new treatments into practice and improve accrual to clinical trials. Use of Via is required for all new therapy changes. Within the decision algorithm, an appropriate available clinical trial is suggested as the first option when available. Clinical trial enrollment statistics are being tracked to determine if this method of potential patient identification results in increased enrollments. Results: After 11 months of Via implementation and 103,515 visits, the visit capture rate was 82.7% suggesting that providers adapted to the pathways quickly. With 3,844 decisions made, 83.9% of all treatment decisions were on pathway. Clinical trial enrollment was 122 patients in the 459 days prior to Via implementation, and 102 patients in the 271 days afterwards. This increase in accrual rate was significant (p = 0.00174.) Conclusions: Early results suggest that Via implementation has resulted in a significant increase in clinical trial accrual. The system will eventually be able to track how often a trial is offered and how often it is accepted. We are hopeful that with complete visit capture of all patients, there will be continued improvement in our rate of clinical trial enrollment.

scholarly journals ACTR-35. A STUDY OF RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IMPACTING THERAPEUTIC CLINICAL TRIAL ENROLLMENT IN ADULT GLIOMAS PATIENTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi21-vi21
Author(s):  
Ramin Morshed ◽  
Sheantel Reihl ◽  
Sofia Kakaizada ◽  
Eric Zhang ◽  
Jacob Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Initial Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Who Grade ◽  
Study Enrollment ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Abstract OBJECT Under-enrollment in clinical trials significantly limits valid analyses of clinical interventions and generalizability of findings. Often it results in premature study termination, with estimates of 22% to 50% of clinical trials terminated due to poor accrual. Currently, there are limited reports addressing the influence of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on clinical trial enrollment in patients with adult glioma. The goal of this study was to determine if these factors impact clinical trial participation for glioma patients. METHODS 852 adult patients were identified from the UCSF Tumor Board Registry and analyzed to determine the rate of therapeutic clinical trial consideration, tumor board recommendation, and study enrollment based on clinical reports in their electronic medical records. RESULTS At initial diagnosis, 30.7% and 18.0% of glioma patients were recommended and enrolled in a therapeutic clinical trial, respectively. At recurrence, 38.7% and 25.3% of patients were recommended and enrolled in a clinical trial, respectively. Nineteen percent of the study population belonged to a NIH-designated underrepresented minority group; Asian/Pacific-Islander comprising 10.3% overall. On univariate analysis, only in-state location, distance to the hospital, and WHO grade were associated with consideration, recommendation, and enrollment at initial diagnosis and recurrence. Minority status, insurance type, median household income, and percent below poverty were not associated with clinical trial recommendation or enrollment. CONCLUSION Race and socioeconomic status did not impact clinical trial consideration, tumor board recommendation, or study enrollment. Our results do not support the premise that provider decisions are impacted by biases based on minority or socioeconomic status.

scholarly journals Adolescent angst: enrollment on clinical trials

Hematology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa H. M. Keegan ◽  
Helen M. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Treatment Setting ◽  
System Level ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Enrollment Rates ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Barriers To Enrollment

Abstract Survival among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) ages 15 to 39 with cancer has not improved to the same extent as that of pediatric and older adult cancer patients, which is thought to relate, in part, to the lower participation of AYAs in clinical trials. Because significant efforts have been made to improve clinical trial enrollment for AYAs, we (1) present contemporary clinical trial enrollment rates by cancer type, sociodemographic characteristics, and treatment setting and (2) discuss provider-, patient-, and system-level barriers to clinical trial participation. Contemporary studies examining clinical trial enrollment among AYAs have continued to find low overall participation relative to pediatric populations, with most studies observing no significant improvements in enrollment over time. In addition to age and cancer type, enrollment varies by treatment setting, health insurance, and race/ethnicity. Access to available clinical trials may be increased by appropriate referral of AYAs to pediatric and adult specialty cancer centers with studies relevant to the AYA population because most AYAs are treated in the community setting. Even with similar access to trials, however, AYAs may be less likely to participate, and therefore, future efforts should focus on better understanding and addressing barriers to enrollment as well as improving education and outreach regarding clinical trials.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment

2019 ◽  
pp. 105-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan D. Nipp ◽  
Kessely Hong ◽  
Electra D. Paskett
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Financial Barriers ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Clinical trials are imperative for testing novel cancer therapies, advancing the science of cancer care, and determining the best treatment strategies to enhance outcomes for patients with cancer. However, barriers to clinical trial enrollment contribute to low participation in cancer clinical trials. Many factors play a role in the persistently low rates of trial participation, including financial barriers, logistical concerns, and the lack of resources for patients and clinicians to support clinical trial enrollment and retention. Furthermore, restrictive eligibility criteria often result in the exclusion of certain patient populations, which thus adds to the widening disparities seen between patients who enroll in trials and those treated in routine practice. Moreover, additional factors, such as difficulty by patients and clinicians in coping with the uncertainty inherent to clinical trial participation, contribute to low trial enrollment and represent key components of the decision-making process. Specifically, patients and clinicians may struggle to assess the risk-benefit ratio and may incorrectly estimate the probability and severity of challenges associated with clinical trial participation, thus complicating the informed consent process. Importantly, research has increasingly focused on overcoming barriers to clinical trial enrollment. A promising solution involves the use of patient navigators to help enhance clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention. Although clinical trials are essential for improving and prolonging the lives of patients with cancer, barriers exist that can impede trial enrollment; yet, efforts to recognize and address these barriers and enhance trial enrollment are being investigated.

scholarly journals Identifying and Overcoming Barriers in Clinical Trial Enrollment for Veterans with Blood Cancers

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1920-1920
Author(s):  
Daphne R. Friedman ◽  
Thomas D. Rodgers ◽  
Leah Szumita ◽  
Elisa S. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Blood Cancer ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Abstract Introduction Equitable and diverse clinical trials participation is essential for practice-changing results to be applicable to all patients. However, patients who identify as minorities, who live in rural areas, and who have low income are typically underrepresented in clinical trials. Increasing clinical trial participation in general and among underrepresented patients in particular is a goal of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's (LLS) Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), a clinical trial nurse navigation service for patients with blood cancers and their oncologists. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is a national network of health care facilities. Approximately 3% of cancers in the United States are diagnosed in the VA. The prevalence of certain blood cancers is higher in the VA, in part due to military exposures. Veterans who receive care in the VA are more likely to have lower income, live in rural areas, and have comorbidities than patients who receive care in the private sector. Clinical trial participation among Veterans may be hampered by VA-specific factors (e.g. relatively fewer clinical trial options in the VA, lack of awareness that Veterans may be referred to participate in clinical trials outside of the VA) and patient-specific factors (e.g. income, rurality, comorbidities, and minority status). This study aimed to characterize and overcome barriers to Veteran enrollment in blood cancer clinical trials. Methods The LLS CTSC performs clinical trial searches using a database with information from clinicaltrials.gov and other proprietary data. To assess the impact of geography and rurality on the availability of clinical trials, we performed simulated searches for clinical trials in proximity of 13 VA facilities (6 rural, 7 urban), six blood cancers (AML, CLL, DLBCL, FL, MDS, MM), and two disease statuses (new diagnosis, relapsed/refractory). To further evaluate barriers to CTSC referral and clinical trial enrollment among Veterans who receive care in the VA, we collected data about referral patterns of VA hematologist-oncologists and Veterans' treatment choices at four VA facilities between September 2020 through May 2021. Results When evaluating both 100- and 200-mile radii from the VA facilities in simulated searches, there were significantly more clinical trials available for Veterans who receive care in urban compared to rural areas and on the East or West Coast compared to the Midwest, in aggregate (all cancers) and by disease type or status (p unadj &lt; 0.0001). Forty-eight Veterans with blood cancers at the Durham NC, Salem VA, Sioux Falls SD, and Clarksburg WV VA facilities had consideration of clinical trials as a treatment option by oncology providers over a nine-month period. All Veterans were male, with 33 White/15 African-American, 47 non-Hispanic/1 Hispanic, age 41-93 years (median 71), living 0.2-186 miles from their VA facility (median 33.1), with diverse diseases and stages represented. Of the 48 patients, 14 patients were not asked if they wanted clinical trials information; reasons were need for immediate therapy, co-morbidities, or patient circumstances. Of 34 patients who were asked if they wanted clinical trials information, 14 did not agree to a referral to the CTSC; reasons were preference for immediate therapy, wanting care in the VA, wanting standard therapy, and lack of transportation. Of 20 referred Veterans, two enrolled in clinical trials outside the VA (for CLL and PMF), with investigational therapy provided by the study sponsors. Conclusions Using data from simulated and actual patient referrals to the LLS CTSC, we identified patient, provider, and location specific barriers for Veteran referral and enrollment in blood cancer clinical trials. When offered information about clinical trials, the majority of patients agreed to an LLS CTSC referral, suggesting that patients are generally willing to receive education and information about trial participation if given the opportunity. The LLS CTSC nurse navigators can overcome barriers to enrollment by providing education and identifying potential clinical trials within a desired geographic area. In addition to resources provided by the LLS CTSC, opening additional clinical trials in rural areas and within the VA system could help increase Veteran participation in clinical trials for blood cancers. Disclosures Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Weiss: AbbVie Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Planning the Size of Clinical Trials with Allowance for Patient Noncompliance

1990 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 243-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. A. Moussa
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Event Rate ◽  
Survival Functions ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Patient Noncompliance ◽  
Event Rates ◽  
Larger Sample

AbstractVarious approaches are considered for adjustment of clinical trial size for patient noncompliance. Such approaches either model the effect of noncompliance through comparison of two survival distributions or two simple proportions. Models that allow for variation of noncompliance and event rates between time intervals are also considered. The approach that models the noncompliance adjustment on the basis of survival functions is conservative and hence requires larger sample size. The model to be selected for noncompliance adjustment depends upon available estimates of noncompliance and event rate patterns.

scholarly journals Are survival and mortality rates associated with recruitment to clinical trials in teenage and young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia? A retrospective observational analysis in England

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Hough ◽  
Sabrina Sandhu ◽  
Maria Khan ◽  
Anthony Moran ◽  
Richard Feltbower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukaemia ◽  
Relative Survival ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Patient Benefit ◽  
Cancer Data

ObjectiveParticipation rates in clinical trials are low in teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer. Whilst the importance of clinical trials in informing best practice is well established, data regarding individual patient benefit are scarce. We have investigated the association between overall survival and trial recruitment in TYA patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).DesignRetrospective.SettingNational (England) TYA patients treated for ALL.Participants511 patients aged 15–24 years diagnosed with ALL between 2004 and 2010 inclusive, of whom 239 (46.7%) participated in the UKALL2003 trial.Outcome measuresPatients were identified using National Clinical Trial (UKALL2003) and Cancer Registry (National Cancer Data Repository, English National Cancer Online Registration Environment) Databases. Relative survival rates were calculated for trial and non-trial patients and observed differences were modelled using a multiple regression approach. The numbers and percentages of deaths in those patients included in the survival analysis were determined for each 3-month period, p values were calculated using the two-tailed z-test for difference between proportions and 95% CIs for percentage deaths were derived using the binomial distribution based on the Wilson Score method.ResultsPatients treated on the trial had a 17.9% better 2-year survival (85.4% vs 67.5%, p<0.001) and 8.9% better 1-year survival (90.8% vs 81.9%, p=0.004) than those not on the trial. 35 (14.6%) patients recruited to the trial died in the 2 years following diagnosis compared with 86 (32.6%) of those not recruited (p<0.001).ConclusionsTYA patients recruited to the clinical trial UKALL 2003 in England had a lower risk of mortality and a higher overall survival than contemporaneous non-trial patients. These data underline the potential for individual patient benefit in participating in a clinical trial and the importance of international efforts to increase trial participation in the TYA age group.Trial registration numberISRCTN07355119.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document