Dataset Information

Sharing of Investigational Drug Among Participants in the Voice Trial.

ABSTRACT: Product sharing among participants can impact on adherence and compromise the outcome in clinical trials. We describe incidents of product sharing at the Durban clinical research sites conducting the VOICE trial. The Durban sites enrolled 2750 women with 1103 and 1647 participants randomized to the vaginal gel and oral tablet arms respectively. Monthly pill and applicator counts including product assessments were conducted by pharmacists. Discrepancies with product counts prompted discussions with participants. Thirty-two cases of product sharing were identified. Vaginal gels were more commonly shared than oral tablets. Product sharing between study participants and their female friends or relatives living in the same household was identified as the most common source of product sharing in this analysis. Study product counts and pharmacist-driven discussions with participants may help to identify reasons for product sharing and inform the development of strategies for PrEP implementation outside of the research setting. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00705679.

SUBMITTER: Moodley J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5071120 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sharing of Investigational Drug Among Participants in the Voice Trial.

Moodley Jeeva J Naidoo Sarita S Moodley Jayajothi J Ramjee Gita G

AIDS and behavior 20161101 11

Product sharing among participants can impact on adherence and compromise the outcome in clinical trials. We describe incidents of product sharing at the Durban clinical research sites conducting the VOICE trial. The Durban sites enrolled 2750 women with 1103 and 1647 participants randomized to the vaginal gel and oral tablet arms respectively. Monthly pill and applicator counts including product assessments were conducted by pharmacists. Discrepancies with product counts prompted discussions wi ...[more]

PMID: 27146827

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.Methods and findingsWe carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.ConclusionsNearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pulmonary vein isolation is insufficient to treat all patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), and effective adjunctive ablation strategies are needed. Ablation of AF drivers holds promise, but current technologies to identify drivers are limited by spatial resolution. In a single-arm, first-in-human, investigator-initiated Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption study, we used a novel system for real-time, high-resolution identification of AF drivers in persistent AF. METHODS:Patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF underwent ablation using the RADAR (Real-Time Electrogram Analysis for Drivers of Atrial Fibrillation) system in conjunction with a standard electroanatomical mapping system. After pulmonary vein isolation, electrogram and spatial information was streamed to the RADAR system and analyzed to identify driver domains to target for ablation. RESULTS:Across 4 centers, 64 subjects were enrolled: 73% male, age, 64.7±9.5 years; body mass index, 31.7±6.0 kg/m2; left atrium size, 54±10 mm, with persistent/long-standing persistent AF in 53 (83%)/11 (17%), prior AF ablation (re-do group) in 26 (41%). After 12.6±0.8 months follow-up, 68% remained AF-free off all antiarrhythmics; 74% remained AF-free and 66% remained AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter-free on or off AADs (antiarrhythmic drugs). AF terminated with ablation in 35 patients (55%) overall and in 23/38 (61%) of de novo ablation patients. For patients with AF termination during ablation, 82% remained AF-free and 74% AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter-free during follow-up on or off AADs. Patients undergoing first-time ablation generally had higher rates of freedom from AF than the re-do group. CONCLUSIONS:This novel technology for panoramic mapping of AF drivers showed promising results in a persistent/long-standing persistent AF population. These data provide the scientific basis for a randomized trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03263702; IDE#G170049.

Project description:Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by core impairments in social communication as well as restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and/or interests. Individuals with ASD, which includes about 2% of the US population, have challenges with activities of daily living and suffer from comorbid medical and mental health concerns. There are no drugs indicated for the core impairments of ASD. As such, there is a significant need for the development of new medication strategies for individuals with ASD. This first-in-human placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study investigated the safety (primary objective) and efficacy of oral SB-121, a combination of L. reuteri, Sephadex® (dextran microparticles), and maltose administered once daily for 28 days in 15 autistic participants. SB-121 was safe and well tolerated. SB-121-associated directional improvements in adaptive behavior measured by Vineland-3 and social preference as measured with eye tracking were noted. These results provide support for further clinical evaluation of SB-121 as a treatment in autistic patients. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple doses of SB-121 in subjects with autism spectrum disorder. Single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial. 15 patients with autism spectrum disorder were randomized and analyzed. Daily dosing of SB-121 or placebo for 28 days, followed by approximately a 14 day washout, then 28 days of dosing with other treatment. Incidence and severity of adverse events, presence of Limosilactobacillus reuteri and Sephadex® in stool, and incidence of bacteremia with positive L. reuteri identification. Additional outcomes include changes from baseline on cognitive and behavior tests as well as biomarker levels. Adverse event rates were similar between SB-121 and placebo, with most reported as mild. There were no severe or serious adverse events. No participants had features of suspected bacteremia or notable changes in vital signs, safety laboratory, or ECG parameters from baseline. There was a statistically significant increase from baseline in the Vineland-3 Adaptive Behavior Composite score (p = 0.03) during SB-121 treatment. There was a trend for increased social/geometric viewing ratio following SB-121 treatment compared to placebo. SB-121 was safe and well tolerated. SB-121-associated directional improvements in adaptive behavior measured by Vineland-3 and social preference as measured with eye tracking were noted.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04944901.

Dataset Information

Sharing of Investigational Drug Among Participants in the Voice Trial.

Publications

Sharing of Investigational Drug Among Participants in the Voice Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets