Clinical trials site recruitment optimisation: Guidance from Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality

Background/Aims: Participants are integral to the success of any clinical research study, yet participant recruitment into clinical trials poses ongoing and complex challenges. It is widely accepted and recognised that clinical trial sites often find it difficult to meet recruitment goals, both in terms of accrual targets and timelines. This can impact the validity of trials or cause major delays for research. There are very few frameworks available to clinical trial sites to improve recruitment. The GREET project (Guidance to Recruitment: Examining Experiences at clinical Trial sites) sought to identify barriers to recruitment and produce formal guidance to optimise recruitment outcomes. Methods: Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality, a collaborative of sector stakeholders, convened a project team with comprehensive knowledge of the Australian clinical trials sector to undertake the GREET project. The project scope included exploration of recruitment issues at a site level across all phases of clinical trials and all types of trial sites. The scope excluded upstream issues such as protocol design and general public clinical trial awareness, participant retention and elements of recruitment outside a site’s capacity to directly influence or control. The project team’s extensive knowledge and experience conducting clinical trials in Australia was used to collaboratively identify a list of 24 key barriers and 12 enablers to site recruitment which formed the basis of the project. Key stakeholder groups were surveyed to challenge project team assumptions. A national and international environmental scan and literature review was conducted to identify best-practice recruitment solutions. Results: A total of 343 people responded to a survey sent to sites, sponsors, and contract research organisations, and 162 people responded to a survey sent to consumers via consumer networks. The key barriers and enablers initially identified by the project team aligned with the key outcomes of the surveys, which in turn assisted in the development of best-practice recommendations in the form of a Clinical Trial Site Recruitment Guide. Recommendations were grouped into four key themes; conducting accurate study feasibility; proactive planning during start-up; selecting optimal recruitment methods; and participant involvement. Early intervention was identified as a key facilitator in maximising improved recruitment outcomes. The GREET Clinical Trial Site Recruitment Guide is publicly accessible on the Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality website. Conclusion: Participant recruitment challenges experienced at a site level are widespread and varied, and there is no universal recruitment solution. However, this project identified that there are interventions and assessments that can be proactively implemented and selectively applied to facilitate improved recruitment outcomes.

Recommendations to Streamline and Standardize Clinical Trial Site Feasibility Assessments: An ASCO Research Statement

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.

AB1360-HPR A MODEL TO IMPROVE MINORITY PATIENT RECRUITMENT IN LUPUS CLINICAL TRIALS - THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY MIMICT PROJECT EXPERIENCE

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