The toxicity gap: Do real-life patients get hospitalized more during chemotherapy compared to trial patients?

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 109-109
Author(s):  
Rebecca Michelle Prince ◽  
Monika K. Krzyzanowska ◽  
Eshetu G. Atenafu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Real Life ◽  
P Value ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Hospitalization Rates ◽  
Study Results

109 Background: Toxicity related hospitalizations during chemotherapy are poorly reported in the literature. We sought to compare “real world” versus clinical trial rates of hospitalizations among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) receiving chemotherapy. We hypothesised that hospitalization rates in real life patients would be significantly higher. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of Medline and EMBASE (1946-June 2013) to identify articles reporting hospitalization rates during chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Both observational studies and clinical trials were eligible. This report focuses on patients with mNSCLC receiving palliative chemotherapy as data was available for this clinical scenario in both the observational and clinical trial setting, allowing comparison. Study results were abstracted using a standardised form. Summary statistics were used to describe results and the chi-square test used to compare hospitalization rates. Results: The search identified 61 articles (all published after 1987), of which 16 were clinical trials and 45 were observational (“real world”) studies. Nine studies examined chemotherapy in mNSCLC - four observational studies and five randomised trials. The four observational studies included 7,456 patients; three included patients on any chemotherapy while the other focused on doublet regimens. Of the five randomised trials which included 3,962 patients, three treated patients with platinum doublets and two used single-agent chemotherapy. The real life cohort was older (70 years vs. 62 years). The aggregate hospitalization rate among real life patients was significantly higher than among trial patients (49% vs. 16%, OR=7.7, 95% CI 7-8.5, p-value < 0.0001). Performance status and type of chemotherapy were associated with hospitalization during chemotherapy in clinical trials while type of chemotherapy was a risk factor in observational studies. Conclusions: Clinical trials in mNSCLC consistently report lower rates of hospitalization than real life cohorts of patients undergoing similar therapies but very few clinical trials report this information.

Reconsenting patients with cancer on clinical trials: Does added risk influence continued participation?

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15610-e15610
Author(s):  
A. Elegbede ◽  
A. Andrei ◽  
A. Andrei ◽  
K. D. Holen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
P Value ◽  
Study Participation ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Study Results

e15610 Background: The general policy endorsed by multiple professional societies and cooperative groups regarding patients on cancer clinical trials states that subjects should be informed of new adverse events or significant developments during study participation and re-consented to continue on study. However, no information is known as to the effect of re-consenting on a patients’ decision to continue study participation. Our research question addresses how the severity of reported risk to other study participants will impact the subjects’ decision to continue participation in a clinical trial. Methods: We surveyed 34 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) tumors all of whom were currently enrolled in a clinical trial. The survey portrayed hypothetical adverse reactions affecting another study participant ranging from Grade 1 to Grade 5 according to the National Cancer Institutes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects v. 3.0. The survey asked about subjects’ opinions of the theoretical adverse event categorized as “would not be concerned,” “would be concerned, but would continue the study,” and “would discontinue the study.” Results: Patients willingness to continue the study was highest at Grade 1 with 97% of all participants. However, willingness to continue participation progressively declined as the severity of adverse events increased such that only 44% of participants would continue participation with a reported Grade 5 adverse event. Conclusions: Among surveyed GI cancer patients, willingness to continue participation in a clinical trial declined significantly as the severity of adverse events increased from Grade 1 to Grade 3 - 5 (p-value < 0.001. This could be due to multiple factors, including the terminal nature of the patients’ cancer, the side effects of study therapy and the patients’ response to study treatment. This data could produce a reasonable adverse event grade cut-off for re-consenting patients regarding new side effects. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Landmark Cancer Clinical Trials and Real-World Patient Populations: Examining Race and Age Reporting

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 5770
Author(s):  
Thejus Jayakrishnan ◽  
Sonikpreet Aulakh ◽  
Mizba Baksh ◽  
Kianna Nguyen ◽  
Meghna Ailawadhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Age Distribution ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
P Value ◽  
World Population ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Age Disparity

Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially in underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from July 2007 to June 2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The outcomes studied were the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and real-world population for various cancers, the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Results: Of the 261 trials, race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials, while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time: 29 (85.3%) in 2007–2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011–2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during the period 2015–2019 (p-value = 0.41). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was higher for studies that did not report race (mean difference −8.8 years (95% CI −12.6 to −5.0 years)) vs. studies that did report it (mean difference −5.1 years, (95% CI −6.4 to −3.7 years), p-value = 0.04). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations, and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations.

scholarly journals Tuberculosis and viral hepatitis in patients treated with certolizumab pegol in Asia-Pacific countries and worldwide: real-world and clinical trial data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chak Sing Lau ◽  
Yi-Hsing Chen ◽  
Keith Lim ◽  
Marc de Longueville ◽  
Catherine Arendt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Viral Hepatitis ◽  
Central Europe ◽  
Real World ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Hbv Reactivation ◽  
Post Marketing

Abstract Introduction/objectives To evaluate the incidence rate (IR) of tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis B and C (HBV/HCV) during certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment, worldwide and in Asia-Pacific countries, across clinical trials and post-marketing reports (non-interventional studies and real-world practice). Method CZP safety data were pooled across 49 clinical trials from 1998 to June 2017. Post-marketing reports were from initial commercialization until March 2015 (TB)/February 2017 (HBV/HCV). All suspected TB and HBV/HCV cases underwent centralized retrospective review by external experts. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated per 100 patient-years (PY) of CZP exposure. Results Among 11,317 clinical trial patients (21,695 PY), 62 TB cases were confirmed (IR 0.29/100 PY) including 2 in Japan (0.10/100 PY) and 3 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.58/100 PY). From > 238,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, there were 31 confirmed TB cases (0.01/100 PY): 5 in Japan (0.05/100 PY), 1 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.03/100 PY). Reported regional TB IRs were highest in eastern Europe (0.17/100 PY), central Europe (0.09/100 PY), and Mexico (0.16/100 PY). Across clinical trials, there was 1 confirmed HBV reactivation and no HCV cases. From > 420,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, 5 HBV/HCV cases were confirmed (0.001/100 PY): 2 HCV reactivations; 1 new HCV; plus 2 HBV reactivations in Japan (0.008/100 PY). Conclusions CZP TB risk is aligned with nationwide TB rates, being slightly higher in Asia-Pacific countries excluding Japan. Overall, TB and HBV/HCV risk with CZP treatment is currently relatively low, as risk can be minimized with patient/physician education, screening, and vigilant treatment, according to international guidelines. Key Points:• TB rates were highest in eastern/central Europe, Mexico, and Asia-Pacific regions.• With the implementation of stricter TB screening and risk evaluations in 2007, especially in high TB incidence countries, there was a notable reduction TB occurrence.• Safety profile of biologics in real-world settings complements controlled studies.• TB and hepatitis (HBV/HCV) risk with certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment is low.

scholarly journals Guidelines on how to assess the validity of results presented in subgroup analysis of clinical trials

2002 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edson Duarte Moreira ◽  
Ezra Susser
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Usual Method ◽  
Validity Of Results ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Trial Participants

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.

Control arm heterogeneity in trials for unselected advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1082-1082
Author(s):  
Kinisha Gala ◽  
Ankit Kalucha ◽  
Samuel Martinet ◽  
Anushri Goel ◽  
Kalpana Devi Narisetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Sample Size Calculations ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Combination Regimens

1082 Background: Primary endpoints of clinical trials frequently include subgroup-analyses. Several solid cancers such as aTNBC are heterogeneous, which can lead to unpredictable control arm performance impairing accurate assumptions for sample size calculations. We explore the value of a comprehensive clinical trial results repository in assessing control arm heterogeneity with aTNBC as the pilot. Methods: We identified P2/3 trials reporting median overall survival (mOS) and/or median progression-free survival (mPFS) in unselected aTNBC through a systematic search of PubMed, clinical trials databases and conference proceedings. Trial arms with sample sizes ≤25 or evaluating drugs no longer in development were excluded. Due to inconsistency among PD-L1 assays, PD-L1 subgroup analyses were not assessed separately. The primary aim was a descriptive analysis of control arm mOS and mPFS across all randomized trials in first line (1L) aTNBC. Secondary aims were to investigate time-to-event outcomes in control arms in later lines and to assess time-trends in aTNBC experimental and control arm outcomes. Results: We included 33 trials published between June 2013-Feb 2021. The mOS of control arms in 1L was 18.7mo (range 12.6-22.8) across 5 trials with single agent (nab-) paclitaxel [(n)P], and 18.1mo (similar range) for 7 trials including combination regimens (Table). The mPFS of control arms in 1L was 4.9mo (range 3.8-5.6) across 5 trials with single-agent (n)P, and 5.6mo (range 3.8-6.1) across 8 trials including combination regimens. Control arm mOS was 13.1mo (range 9.4-17.4) for 3 trials in first and second line (1/2L) and 8.7mo (range 6.7-10.8) across 5 trials in 2L and beyond. R2 for the mOS best-fit lines across control and experimental arms over time was 0.09, 0.01 and 0.04 for 1L, 1/2L and 2L and beyond, respectively. Conclusions: Median time-to-event outcomes of control arms in 1L aTNBC show considerable heterogeneity, even among trials with comparable regimens and large sample sizes. Disregarding important prognostic factors at stratification can lead to imbalances between arms, which may jeopardize accurate sample size calculations, trial results and interpretation. Optimizing stratification and assumptions for power calculations is of utmost importance in aTNBC and beyond. A digitized trial results repository with precisely defined patient populations and treatment settings could improve accuracy of assumptions during clinical trial design.[Table: see text]

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.

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

scholarly journals A Distribution-based Method for Assessing The Differences between Clinical Trial Target Populations and Patient Populations in Electronic Health Records

2014 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 463-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Ryan ◽  
Y. Zhang ◽  
F. Liu ◽  
J. Gao ◽  
J.T. Bigger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
Real World ◽  
World Population ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
Electronic Health

SummaryObjective: To improve the transparency of clinical trial generalizability and to illustrate the method using Type 2 diabetes as an example.Methods: Our data included 1,761 diabetes clinical trials and the electronic health records (EHR) of 26,120 patients with Type 2 diabetes who visited Columbia University Medical Center of New-York Presbyterian Hospital. The two populations were compared using the Generalizability Index for Study Traits (GIST) on the earliest diagnosis age and the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values.Results: Greater than 70% of Type 2 diabetes studies allow patients with HbA1c measures between 7 and 10.5, but less than 40% of studies allow HbA1c<7 and fewer than 45% of studies allow HbA1c>10.5. In the real-world population, only 38% of patients had HbA1c between 7 and 10.5, with 12% having values above the range and 52% having HbA1c<7. The GIST for HbA1c was 0.51. Most studies adopted broad age value ranges, with the most common restrictions excluding patients >80 or <18 years. Most of the real-world population fell within this range, but 2% of patients were <18 at time of first diagnosis and 8% were >80. The GIST for age was 0.75. Conclusions: We contribute a scalable method to profile and compare aggregated clinical trial target populations with EHR patient populations. We demonstrate that Type 2 diabetes studies are more generalizable with regard to age than they are with regard to HbA1c. We found that the generalizability of age increased from Phase 1 to Phase 3 while the generalizability of HbA1c decreased during those same phases. This method can generalize to other medical conditions and other continuous or binary variables. We envision the potential use of EHR data for examining the generaliz-ability of clinical trials and for defining population-representative clinical trial eligibility criteria.Citation: Weng C, Li Y, Ryan P, Zhang Y, Liu F, Gao J, Bigger JT, Hripcsak G. A distribution-based method for assessing the differences between clinical trial target populations and patient populations in electronic health records. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 463–479 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-12-RA-0105

Efficacy and Safety of Apremilast Monotherapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: Retrospective Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvin Ighani ◽  
Jorge R. Georgakopoulos ◽  
Linda L. Zhou ◽  
Scott Walsh ◽  
Neil Shear ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Oral Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Background: Apremilast is a new oral drug for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that reduces inflammation by inhibiting phosphodiesterase 4. Its efficacy and safety data are limited; hence, real-world outcomes are important for elucidating the full spectrum of its adverse events (AEs) and expanding generalizability of clinical trial findings. Objective: Assess the efficacy and safety of apremilast monotherapy in real-world practice. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in 2 academic dermatology practices. Efficacy was measured as the proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI-75) or a Psoriasis Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 16 weeks. Safety was measured as the proportion of patients reporting ≥1 AE at 16 weeks. Results: Thirty-four patients were included. Efficacy: 19 patients (55.9%) achieved PASI-75 or PGA 0/1. Safety: 23 patients (67.6%) experienced ≥1 AEs. Five patients (14.7%) withdrew treatment prior to week 16 due to AEs. One patient withdrew treatment due to mood lability and depression. Common AEs included headache (32.4%), nausea (20.6%), diarrhoea (14.7%), weight loss (8.8%), and loose stool (8.8%). Conclusion: Apremilast monotherapy had higher efficacy with similar safety outcomes in the real world compared to clinical trials. There were higher proportions of reported headaches compared to clinical trials. This study supports the apremilast monotherapy clinical trial findings, suggesting that it has an acceptable safety profile and significantly reduces the severity of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study.

scholarly journals Returning aggregate results of clinical trials: Empirical data of patient preferences

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 356-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen E. Aldinger ◽  
Jennifer Ligibel ◽  
Im Hee Shin ◽  
John W. Denninger ◽  
Barbara E. Bierer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Integrative Medicine ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Study Results

AbstractIntroduction:The purpose of this research was to understand the preferences of patients receiving integrative medicine services for return of aggregate study results.Methods:A brief online survey (survey 1) was sent to 341 cancer patients receiving integrative medicine interventions; subsequently, a minimally revised survey (survey 2) was sent to 812 individuals with various medical conditions who had been either research participants in integrative medicine studies (n = 446) or patients (n = 346) of mind–body medicine.Results:Feedback to a model plain language summary was elicited from survey 1 and survey 2 respondents. Seventy-seven survey recipients (23%) responded to survey 1, and 134 survey recipients (17%) responded to survey 2. The majority of respondents to the surveys were female and 51–70 years of age. Ninety percent of responders to survey 1 and 89% of responders to survey 2 indicated that researchers should share overall results of a study with participants. In terms of the means of result distribution, 37%–47% preferred email, while 22%–27% indicated that, as long as the results are shared, it did not matter how this occurred. Of 38 survey 1 respondents who had previously participated in a clinical trial, 37% had received the results of their study. In survey 2, 63 individuals indicated that they previously participated in clinical trials, but only 16% recalled receiving results.Conclusions:These results confirm that the majority (89%–90%) of integrative medicine patients are interested in receiving the results of clinical trials. The majority (82%–94%) of respondents felt the model plain language summary of results provided was helpful.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document