scholarly journals Stakeholder Perceptions of Barriers to Diverse Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trial Enrollment at Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3014-3014
Author(s):  
Andrew Hantel ◽  
Jane Roberts ◽  
Anna Revette ◽  
Christopher S. Lathan ◽  
Gregory A. Abel

Abstract Introduction Disparities in clinical trial enrollment have the potential to bias findings, limit generalizability, misdirect drug development, and reduce equitable access to novel therapy. Given the unique care delivery and clinical trial patterns of acute leukemia (AML), barriers to trial enrollment for underrepresented groups at the Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), where patients are often treated, may be distinct. Characterization of these barriers has been limited, preventing the development of interventions to overcome this disparity for AML. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative project to characterize barriers to trial enrollment and facilitators to overcome them through a series of focus groups and individual interviews. Participants were persons with AML who identified from one or more underrepresented groups and AML physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at three Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center hospitals. A moderator guide was developed based on literature review and iteratively revised by study investigators. The questions enabled an open-ended multi-level (patient, provider, trial, institution, societal) exploration of five main domains, including familiarity and experience with clinical trials, factors influencing participation, participant concerns and enrollment supports, and facilitators to address enrollment barriers and disparities. Focus groups and interviews occurred through video conference or phone and were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. The interdisciplinary research team conducted a multi-step thematic analysis guided by framework analysis, and included prefigured and emergent codes. The team-based analysis synthesized data within and across participant types and focused on the identification of key patterns and prevalent themes related to barriers to clinical trial enrollment. Coding and analysis were assisted by NVivo 12 software. Results presented below highlight barriers that were considered relevant to the unique care delivery patterns of AML and clinically significant. Results 37 participants (19 patients; 18 providers) were recruited to focus groups (30) or interviews (7) between 5/6-6/28/2021. Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. Patient participants were generally familiar with clinical trials. Despite limited explicit expression of enrollment hesitancy, both patients and providers noted multiple potential barriers to clinical trial enrollment specific to AML, including the rapidity from diagnosis to treatment; the inpatient setting of therapy; a lack of knowledge regarding incidence and enrollment demographics and their differences; restrictive trial design factors (e.g., hospital stays, mutation specificity); and concerns over the appropriateness and efficacy of a given trial relative to individual disease risk. Key enrollment barriers reported by participants are shown in Figure 1. Participant-identified facilitators to address these barriers are shown in Figure 2. Facilitators to overcome barriers specific to AML that were considered potentially impactful included: peri-enrollment peer support for patients, continuance of telehealth visits during trial participation, feedback and training to increase provider awareness and understanding of disparities and diverse communities, trial design augmentation to minimize restrictive barriers (centralized laboratory draws, multiple hospitalizations, white blood cell count and organ function criteria) and increase inclusivity (multiple language and culturally competent consent), and bolstering inter-institutional AML program partnerships to increase diverse patient referral. Conclusions Stakeholder-reported barriers to diverse AML clinical trial enrollment at CCCs include multiple disease-specific characteristics that reflect the unique care pattern of AML, such as concerns about restrictive trial design characteristics, the need to be inpatient, and the requirement to make decisions quickly after diagnosis. Several barriers and potential interventions at each level were considered impactful by both providers and patients. These formative data suggest a novel multi-level approach for overcoming AML enrollment disparities at CCCs is needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
Ahmed Megahed ◽  
Gary L Buchschacher ◽  
Ngoc J. Ho ◽  
Reina Haque ◽  
Robert Michael Cooper

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]


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neha M. Jain ◽  
Alison Culley ◽  
Teresa Knoop ◽  
Christine Micheel ◽  
Travis Osterman ◽  
...  

In this work, we present a conceptual framework to support clinical trial optimization and enrollment workflows and review the current state, limitations, and future trends in this space. This framework includes knowledge representation of clinical trials, clinical trial optimization, clinical trial design, enrollment workflows for prospective clinical trial matching, waitlist management, and, finally, evaluation strategies for assessing improvement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Dickerson ◽  
Kamilla L. Venner ◽  
Bonnie Duran

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address a significant public mental health disparity affecting American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs): the shortage of clinical trials research analyzing the benefits of AI/AN traditional-based treatments, e.g. drumming. Design/methodology/approach – A total of four focus groups were conducted among outpatient and inpatient AI/AN substance abuse patients and providers serving AI/ANs. The purpose of these focus groups was to obtain insights relating to the recent challenges of conducting a clinical trial within the outpatient treatment setting seeking to analyze the benefits of a new substance abuse treatment intervention utilizing drumming for AI/ANs [Drum-assisted Recovery Therapy for Native Americans (DARTNA)] and to obtain recommendations to successfully conduct a similar study within an inpatient treatment setting. Findings – The most prevalent barriers to conducting a clinical trial within an outpatient setting were transportation and child care issues. Recommendations were obtained with regard to optimizing recruitment and retention for a future study within an inpatient setting. Originality/value – This research offers the field rare information that helps toward identifying strategies to successfully conduct clinical trials investigating the benefits of culturally-appropriate treatments for AI/ANs with substance use disorders.


Hematology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-233
Author(s):  
Lindsey A. George

Abstract After 3 decades of clinical trials, repeated proof-of-concept success has now been demonstrated in hemophilia A and B gene therapy. Current clinical hemophilia gene therapy efforts are largely focused on the use of systemically administered recombinant adeno-associated viral (rAAV) vectors for F8 or F9 gene addition. With multiple ongoing trials, including licensing studies in hemophilia A and B, many are cautiously optimistic that the first AAV vectors will obtain regulatory approval within approximately 1 year. While supported optimism suggests that the goal of gene therapy to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care may soon be realized, a number of outstanding questions have emerged from clinical trial that are in need of answers to harness the full potential of gene therapy for hemophilia patients. This article reviews the use of AAV vector gene addition approaches for hemophilia A and B, focusing specifically on information to review in the process of obtaining informed consent for hemophilia patients prior to clinical trial enrollment or administering a licensed AAV vector.


US Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Said R Beydoun ◽  
Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Edaravone significantly slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and is the first therapy to receive approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the disease in 22 years. Approval of edaravone has marked a new chapter in pharmaceutical development since the key trial included a novel strategic clinical design involving cohort enrichment. In addition, approval was based on clinical trials that had a relatively small patient number and were performed outside of the US. Edaravone was developed through a series of clinical trials in Japan where it was determined that a well-defined subgroup of patients was required to reveal a treatment effect within the study period. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is associated with wide-ranging disease heterogeneity (both within the spectrum of ALS phenotypes as well as in the rate of progression). The patient cohort enrichment strategy aimed to address this heterogeneity and should now be considered as a viable, and perhaps preferred, trial design for future studies. Future research incorporating relevant biomarkers may help to better elucidate edaravone’s mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and subsequently ALS phenotypes that may preferentially benefit from treatment. In this review, we discuss the edaravone clinical development program, outline the strategic clinical trial design, and highlight important lessons for future trials.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liana C Brooks ◽  
Rohan R Bhat ◽  
Robyn F Farrell ◽  
Mark W Schoenike ◽  
John A Sbarbaro ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18574-e18574
Author(s):  
Rosa Nouvini ◽  
Patricia A. Parker ◽  
Charlotte Malling ◽  
Kendra Godwin ◽  
Rosario Costas-Muñiz

e18574 Background: Minorities continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials despite the National Institute of Health’s Revitalization Act, passed in 1993, mandating the representation of women and underrepresented minority groups in clinical trials. Studies have shown that although Blacks represent 15% and Hispanics 13% of the cancer population, their clinical trial enrollment rates in are disproportionately low at 4-6% and 3-6% respectively. We conducted a systematic review exploring interventions aimed at improving clinical trial enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid PsycINFO was conducted for English-language studies of humans since 1993. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed, U.S.-based studies with interventions aimed to recruit underrepresented minority adult cancer patients into cancer clinical trials. We defined underrepresented minority groups as Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. Results: A total of 2471 titles and abstracts were identified and 2324 were excluded based on the eligibility criteria. A full text review was conducted of the remaining 147 articles, of which only 9 met criteria for our review. The interventions included patient navigation/coaching (n = 4), a clinical trial educational video (n = 2), institutional research infrastructure changes (n = 1), a relationship building and social marketing recruitment model (n = 1) and cultural competency training for providers (n = 1). Studies were conducted in a variety of practice settings including national cancer institutes and community practices. The quality of evidence was limited by the heterogeneity of study methods, patient representation and bias. Several studies had a homogeneous population of Black patients. Most studies (n = 7) were single arm trials that compared results to either historical controls or those cited in the existing literature; two studies were randomized controlled trials. A statistically significant improvement in accrual was shown in three of the patient navigation interventions, one of the clinical trial educational videos, the institutional research infrastructure change and the relationship building and social marketing recruitment model. The common threads to many of these successful interventions were support through the cancer care continuum, cultural congruency of research staff and culturally catered clinical trial educational materials. Conclusions: This systematic review illustrates several mechanisms by which to increase cancer clinical trial recruitment for cancer patients of underrepresented minority backgrounds in a variety of clinical settings. Randomized controlled trials with representation of multiple races/ethnicities are needed to further explore the benefits of these interventions.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document