Many patients with rare diseases are still lacking a timely diagnosis and approved therapies for their condition despite the tremendous efforts of the research community, biopharmaceutical, medical device industries, and patient support groups. The development of clinical research networks for rare diseases offers a tremendous opportunity for patients and multi-disciplinary teams to collaborate, share expertise, gain better understanding on specific rare diseases, and accelerate clinical research and innovation. Clinical Research Networks have been developed at a national or continental level, but global collaborative efforts to connect them are still lacking. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium set a Task Force on Clinical Research Networks for Rare Diseases with the objective to analyse the structure and attributes of these networks and to identify the barriers and needs preventing their international collaboration. The Task Force created a survey and sent it to pre-identified clinical research networks located worldwide.
A total of 34 responses were received. The survey analysis demonstrated that clinical research networks are diverse in their membership composition and emphasize community partnerships including patient groups, health care providers and researchers. The sustainability of the networks is mostly supported by public funding. Activities and research carried out at the networks span the research continuum from basic to clinical to translational research studies. Key elements and infrastructures conducive to collaboration are well adopted by the networks, but barriers to international interoperability are clearly identified. These hurdles can be grouped into five categories: funding limitation; lack of harmonization in regulatory and contracting process; need for common tools and data standards; need for a governance framework and coordination structures; and lack of awareness and robust interactions between networks.
Through this analysis, the Task Force identified key elements that should support both developing and established clinical research networks for rare diseases in implementing the appropriate structures to achieve international interoperability worldwide. A global roadmap of actions and a specific research agenda, as suggested by this group, provides a platform to identify common goals between these networks.

Children have historically been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials and multi-center studies. This is particularly true for children who reside in rural and underserved areas. Conducting multi-center trials in rural areas presents unique informatics challenges. These challenges call for increased attention towards informatics infrastructure and the need for development and application of sound informatics approaches to the collection, processing, and management of data for clinical studies. By modifying existing local infrastructure and utilizing open source tools, we have been able to successfully deploy a multi-site data coordinating and operations center. We report our implementation decisions for data collection and management for the IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trial Network (ISPCTN) based on the functionality needed for the ISPCTN, our synthesis of the extant literature in data collection and management methodology, and Good Clinical Data Management Practices.

UNASSIGNED: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities.
UNASSIGNED: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research.
UNASSIGNED: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Respiratory virus infections cause significant morbidity and mortality ranging from mild uncomplicated acute respiratory illness to severe complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, and death during epidemics and pandemics. We present a protocol to systematically study patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, due to respiratory viral pathogens to evaluate the natural history, prognostic biomarkers, and characteristics, including hospital stress, associated with clinical outcomes and severity.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study.
METHODS: Multicenter cohort of patients admitted to an acute care ward or ICU from at least 15 hospitals representing diverse geographic regions across the United States.
METHODS: Patients with SARI caused by infection with respiratory viruses that can cause outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics.
METHODS: None.
RESULTS: Measurements include patient demographics, signs, symptoms, and medications; microbiology, imaging, and associated tests; mechanical ventilation, hospital procedures, and other interventions; and clinical outcomes and hospital stress, with specimens collected on days 0, 3, and 7-14 after enrollment and at discharge. The primary outcome measure is the number of consecutive days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (VFD) in the first 30 days after hospital admission. Important secondary outcomes include organ failure-free days before acute kidney injury, shock, hepatic failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation, 28-day mortality, adaptive immunity, as well as immunologic and microbiologic outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: SARI-Preparedness is a multicenter study under the collaboration of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery, Resilience Intelligence Network, and National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center, which seeks to improve understanding of prognostic factors associated with worse outcomes and increased resource utilization. This can lead to interventions to mitigate the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections associated with SARI.

BACKGROUND: The Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT) is a multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial investigating whether Helicobacter (H.) pylori eradication reduces hospitalisation for peptic ulcer bleeding. Recruited participants were aged 60 and over and taking aspirin (≤325 mg daily) for at least four months prior to consent. Based on results of a pilot study, a sample size calculation predicted 6600 H. pylori-positive randomised participants would be required, from 33,000 volunteers, recruited from 170,000 invited patients. Methodology was therefore designed for recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care using a novel electronic search tool, automated mail-out and electronic follow-up. Recruitment started in 2012 and completed in 2017.
METHODS: All participants were recruited from GP practices, with assistance from the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN). H. pylori-positive participants were randomised to one week of eradication treatment or placebo. Recruitment was managed using a bespoke web-based database that communicated directly with a programmed search tool downloaded at participating practices. The primary endpoint is hospitalisation due to peptic ulcer bleeding. The trial will end when 87 adjudicated events have occurred, identified from searches of GP databases, review of secondary care admission data and mortality data, and reported events from randomised participants and GPs.
RESULTS: HEAT has recruited participants from 1208 GP practices across the UK. Of the 188,875 invitation letters sent, 38,771 returned expressions of interest. Of these, 30,166 patients were consented to the trial, of whom 5355 H. pylori-positive participants (17.8% of those consented) were randomised. Mean age at consent was 73.1 ± 6.9 (SD) years and 72.2% of participants were male. Of the randomised (H. pylori-positive) participants, 531 have died (as of 17 Sep 2020); none of the deaths was due to trial treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The HEAT trial methodology has demonstrated that recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care is attainable, with the assistance of the UKCRN, and could be applied to other clinical outcomes studies.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov ; registration number NCT01506986 . Registered on 10 Jan 2012.

OBJECTIVE: To capture the early effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pediatric clinical research.
METHODS: Pediatric clinical research networks from 20 countries and 50 of their affiliated research sites completed two surveys over one month from early May to early June 2020. Networks liaised with their affiliated sites and contributed to the interpretation of results through pan-European group discussions. Based on first detection dates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), countries formed 1 early detecting and 1 late detecting cluster. We tested the hypothesis that this clustering influenced clinical research.
RESULTS: Research sites were first impacted by the pandemic in mid-March 2020 (March 16 ± 10 days, the same date as lockdown initiation; P = .99). From first impact up until early June, site initiation and feasibility analysis processes were affected for >50% of the sites. Staff were redirected to COVID-19 research for 44% of the sites, and 75.5% of sites were involved in pediatric COVID-19 research (only 6.3% reported COVID-19 cases in their other pediatric trials). Mitigation strategies were used differently between the early and late detecting country clusters and between countries with and without a pediatric COVID-19 research taskforce. Positive effects include the development of teleworking capacities.
CONCLUSIONS: Through this collaborative effort from pediatric research networks, we found that pediatric trials were affected and conducted with a range of unequally applied mitigations across countries during the pandemic. The global impact might be greater than captured. In a context where clinical research is increasingly multinational, this report reveals the importance of collaboration between national networks.

Stratified medicine is an important area of research across all clinical specialties, with far reaching impact in many spheres. Despite recently formulated global policy and research programmes, major challenges for delivering stratified medicine studies persist. Across the globe, clinical research infrastructures have been setup to facilitate high quality clinical research.
This article reviews the literature and summarizes views collated from a workshop held by the UK Pharmacogenetics and Stratified Medicine Network and the NIHR Clinical Research Network in November 2016.
Stratified medicine is an important area of clinical research and health policy, benefitting from substantial international, cross-sector investment and has the potential to transform patient care. However there are significant challenges to the delivery of stratified medicine studies.
Complex methodology and lack of consistency of definition and agreement on key approaches to the design, regulation and delivery of research contribute to these challenges and would benefit from greater focus.
Effective partnership and development of consistent approaches to the key factors relating to stratified medicine research is required to help overcome these challenges.
This paper examines the critical contribution clinical research networks can make to the delivery of national (and international) initiatives in the field of stratified medicine. Importantly, it examines the position of clinical research in stratified medicine at a time when pressures on the clinical and social services are mounting.

Despite growing acceptance of patient registries and natural history studies to provide useful information, the rare disease community suffers from the absence of reliable epidemiological data on the prevalence and incidence of most rare diseases in national and global populations. Likewise, the patients and health care providers lack adequate information on the pathophysiology of rare diseases and expected outcomes of these disorders. The rare diseases community includes all of the stakeholders involved in the research and development and dissemination of products and information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of rare diseases or conditions. To replace many of the perceptions with realities, several global efforts have been implemented to sustain and increase the reported progress with the thousands of rare diseases. The first efforts is to develop a global research infrastructure of qualified investigators to stimulate and coordinate research efforts by seeking ways to provide access to clinical trials at multi-national research sites with common protocols and multi-disciplinary research teams. Next, is the continued identification and expansion of worldwide partnerships and collaborations of Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs), research investigators, the biopharmaceutical and medical devices industries, and the government research and regulatory agencies for a specific rare disease or group of related diseases. Gaining access to information about rare diseases, patient advocacy groups, ongoing and planned research studies and products in research protocols continue to improve the lives of patients and their families. Many basic, clinical and translational research investigators, public and private sector funding organizations, patient advocacy groups, foundations, and the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical devices industries are committed to translating research discoveries that will be useful in the treatment and care of patients with rare diseases over their lifespan. Evidence from well-constructed epidemiological studies will provide the evidence that point to the value of additional clinical studies to increase the understanding of rare diseases.

Telehealth offers an innovative approach to improve heart failure care that expands beyond traditional management strategies. Yet the use of telehealth in heart failure is infrequent because of several obstacles. Fundamentally, the evidence is inconsistent across studies of telehealth interventions in heart failure, which limits the ability of cardiologists to make general conclusions. Where encouraging evidence exists, there are logistical challenges to broad-scale implementation as a result of insufficient understanding of how to transform telemedicine strategies into clinical practice effectively. Ultimately, when implementation is reasonable, the application of these efforts remains hampered by regulatory, reimbursement, and other policy issues. The primary aim of this paper is to describe these challenges and to outline a path forward to apply telehealth approaches to heart failure in conjunction with payment reform and pragmatic research study design.

This review provides paediatricians with an update on the new structure of the National Institute for Health Research\'s (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN): Children and its role within the wider NIHR infrastructure. The network supports delivery of high-quality research within the NHS in England and supports researchers, through provision of staff and resources, with feasibility, site set-up, patient recruitment and study management. Since 2013, over 80% of commercial contract studies running within the UK sat within the UKCRN Portfolio. Of the diverse, increasing portfolio of studies supported by the network, many studies are interventional, with 33% being randomised controlled studies. Recruitment to studies supported by the network through the Children\'s Portfolio has consistently improved. Over 200 000 participants have been recruited to the Children\'s Portfolio studies to date, and there are currently approximately 500 studies open to recruitment. The CRN: Children has successfully involved patients and the public in all aspects of study design and delivery, including through the work of Generation R. Challenges remain in conducting paediatric research and the network is committed to supporting Children\'s research and further building on its achievements to date. Education and engagement of paediatricians within the network and research is important to further improving quality and delivery of paediatric research.