BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing availability of clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, racial/ethnic minorities and other populations facing health disparities remain underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating products for Duchenne. We sought to understand the barriers faced by Hispanic/Latino families specifically and underrepresented groups more generally to clinical trial participation in Duchenne.
METHODS: We engaged two participant groups: Hispanic/Latino caregivers of children with Duchenne in the US, including Puerto Rico, and health professionals within the broader US Duchenne community. Caregiver interviews explored attitudes towards and experiences with clinical trials, while professional interviews explored barriers to clinical trial participation among socio-demographically underrepresented families (e.g., low income, rural, racial/ethnic minority, etc.). Interviews were analyzed aggregately and using a thematic analysis approach. An advisory group was engaged throughout the course of the study to inform design, conduct, and interpretation of findings generated from interviews.
RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted, including with 12 Hispanic/Latina caregivers and 18 professionals. We identified barriers to clinical trial participation at various stages of the enrollment process. In the initial identification of patients, barriers included lack of awareness about trials and clinical trial locations at clinics that were less likely to serve diverse patients. In the prescreening process, barriers included ineligibility, anticipated non-compliance in clinical trial protocols, and language discrimination. In screening, barriers included concerns about characteristics of the trial, as well as mistrust/lack of trust. In consent and recruitment, barriers included lack of timely decision support, logistical factors (distance, time, money), and lack of translated study materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous barriers hinder participation in Duchenne clinical trials for Hispanic/Latino families and other populations experiencing health disparities. Addressing these barriers necessitates interventions across multiple stages of the clinical trial enrollment process. Recommendations to enhance participation opportunities include developing clinical trial decision support tools, translating prominent clinical trials educational resources such as ClinicalTrials.gov, fostering trusting family-provider relationships, engaging families in clinical trial design, and establishing ethical guidelines for pre-screening potentially non-compliant patients.

UNASSIGNED: Pediatric clinical trials are difficult to conduct, leading to off-label use of medication in children based on results of trials with adults. As a unique population, children deserve to have appropriately tested therapies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pediatric caregivers\' beliefs and perceived barriers to participation in clinical trials.
UNASSIGNED: The study was completed within the Sunflower Pediatric Clinical Trials Research Extension (SPeCTRE), an affiliate of the IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN). This was a cross-sectional survey, adapted from the Pediatric Research Participation Questionnaire. A convenience sample of pediatric caregivers was recruited in three areas of a highly rural Midwestern state between 2017 and 2018.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 159 caregivers completed surveys; the majority (72.3%) were previously familiar with clinical trials, but less than 20% had ever been invited to participate. Caregivers were willing to consider enrolling their child if a physician in whom they had high trust recommended the trials (H = 10.1, p = 0.04) and if there were perceived benefits, such as access to tests and medications not covered by insurance (correlation coefficient [CC] = 0.4, p < 0.01) and compensation for time and travel (CC = 0.3, p = 0.04).
UNASSIGNED: Trust in their physician highly influences likelihood of a caregiver consenting to have their child participate in a clinical trial. Therefore, to facilitate opportunities for children to participate in clinical trials, physicians need to be trained so they can offer trials locally. In addition, trials need to offer benefits, such as increased access to tests and medications as well as appropriate compensation.

Translational paediatric drug development includes the exchange between basic, clinical and population-based research to improve the health of children. This includes the assessment of treatment related risks and their management. The objectives of this scoping review were to search and summarise the literature for practical guidance on how to establish a paediatric safety specification and its integration into a paediatric protocol. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and websites of regulatory authorities and learned societies were searched (up to 31 December 2020). Retrieved citations were screened and full texts reviewed where applicable. A total of 3480 publications were retrieved. No article was identified providing practical guidance. An introduction to the practical aspects of paediatric safety profiling and protocol development is provided by combining health authority and learned society guidelines with the specifics of paediatric research. The paediatric safety specification informs paediatric protocol development by, for example, highlighting the need for a pharmacokinetic study prior to a paediatric trial. It also informs safety related protocol sections such as exclusion criteria, safety monitoring and risk management. In conclusion, safety related protocol sections require an understanding of the paediatric safety specification. Safety data from carefully planned paediatric research provide valuable information for children, parents and healthcare providers.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an increasingly diagnosed condition whose failure to respond to new drugs effective in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is of great concern. HFpEF is an incompletely understood and markedly heterogeneous syndrome, but cardiac amyloidosis is increasingly recognized as one of its various causes. The specific hemodynamic and pathophysiological features of cardiac amyloidosis result in poor tolerance of heart failure medications and in worse outcomes compared with other causes. Until recently, patients considered for HFpEF trials were not routinely screened for cardiac amyloidosis. This review examines how real-world patients with cardiac amyloidosis met inclusion criteria for 8 major HFpEF clinical trials, including the recent PARAGON (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. This review discusses how the presence in the trial populations of a subset of patients with cardiac amyloidosis might contribute to explain the absence of efficacy of medications for HFpEF in trials so far. A multistep screening strategy is suggested in which patients with red flags for cardiac amyloidosis undergo both a light chain assay and technetium-labeled cardiac scintigraphy (technetium-labeled cardiac scintigraphy scan), which, when negative, rule out cardiac amyloidosis. Using this strategy would allow the testing of new medications for HFpEF in populations containing no patients with cardiac amyloidosis, thus potentially increasing the likelihood of showing therapeutic efficacy, and finally making some effective treatment available.

Very large cohorts that span an entire population raise new prospects for the conduct of multiple trials that speed up advances in prevention or treatment while reducing participant, financial and regulatory burden. However, a review of literature reveals no blueprint to guide this systematically in practice. This Statement of Intent proposes how diverse trials may be integrated within or alongside Generation Victoria (GenV), a whole-of-state Australian birth cohort in planning, and delineates potential processes and opportunities.
Parents of all newborns (estimated 160,000) in the state of Victoria, Australia, will be approached for two full years from 2021. The cohort design comprises four elements: (1) consent soon after birth to follow the child and parent/s until study end or withdrawal; retrospective and prospective (2) linkage to clinical and administrative datasets and (3) banking of universal and clinical biosamples; and (4) GenV-collected biosamples and data. GenV-collected data will focus on overarching outcome and phenotypic measures using low-burden, universal-capable electronic interfaces, with funding-dependent face-to-face assessments tailored to universal settings during the early childhood, school and/or adult years.
For population or registry-type trials within GenV, GenV will provide all outcomes data and consent via traditional, waiver, or Trials Within Cohorts models. Trials alongside GenV consent their own participants born within the GenV window; GenV may help identify potential participants via opt-in or opt-out expression of interest. Data sharing enriches trials with outcomes, prior data, and/or access to linked data contingent on custodian\'s agreements, and supports modeling of causal effects to the population and between-trials comparisons of costs, benefits and utility. Data access will operate under the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) and Care and Five Safes Principles. We consider governance, ethical and shared trial oversight, and expectations that trials will adhere to the best practice of the day.
Children and younger adults can access fewer trials than older adults. Integrating trials into mega-cohorts should improve health and well-being by generating faster, larger-scale evidence on a longer and/or broader horizon than previously possible. GenV will explore the limits and details of this approach over the coming years.

Clinical trial data collection still relies on a manual entry from information available in the medical record. This process introduces delay and error risk. Automating data transfer from Electronic Health Record (EHR) to Electronic Data Capture (EDC) system, under investigators\' supervision, would gracefully solve these issues. The present paper describes the design of the evaluation of a technology allowing EHR to act as eSource for clinical trials. As part of the EHR2EDC project, for 6 ongoing clinical trials, running at 3 hospitals, a parallel semi-automated data collection using such technology will be conducted focusing on a limited scope of data (demographic data, local laboratory results, concomitant medication and vital signs). The evaluation protocol consists in an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis comparing regular clinical trial data collection to the semi-automated one. The main outcome is the proportion of data correctly entered. Data quality and associated workload for hospital staff will be compared as secondary outcomes. Results should be available in 2020.

Research requires high-quality ethical and governance scrutiny and approval. However, when research is conducted across different countries, this can cause challenges due to the differing ethico-legal framework requirements of ethical boards. There is no specific guidance for research which does not involve non-medicinal products.
To describe and address differences in ethical and research governance procedures applied by research ethics committees for non-pharmaceutical palliative care studies including adult participants in collaborative European studies.
An online survey analysed using descriptive statistics.
Eighteen principal investigators in 11 countries conducting one of three European-funded studies.
There was variation in practice including whether ethical approval was required. The time to gain full approvals differed with the United Kingdom having governance procedures that took the longest time. Written consent was not required in all countries nor were data safety monitoring committees for trials. There were additional differences in relation to other data management issues.
Researchers need to take the differences in research approval procedures into account when planning studies. Future research is needed to establish European-wide recommendations for policy and practice that dovetail ethical procedures and enhance transnational research collaborations.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the quantitative and qualitative evolution of the Peruvian Clinical Trial Registry during the last 22 years.
METHODS: Following a cross-sectional design, we reviewed all clinical trials registered at the Peruvian Clinical Trial Registry during 1995-2017. We downloaded and extracted all registries on 31 March 2018. We summarized qualitative variables and quantitative variables. Also, we performed trends analysis of the records by year, clinical phase, institutional review board, and children\'s participation.
RESULTS: The Peruvian Clinical Trial Registry recorded 1748 clinical trials during 1995-2017. Considering World Health Organization 20-standard descriptors as the standard, the registry suitably recorded four of them in 1995 and 19 since 2013. There was a meaningful change in the trend of the registries, showing a significant upward registry trend until 2008 and a significant downward registry trend since then. This trend could be influenced by new regulation in clinical trials registry. Several trials had incomplete entries for different studied variables. Most of the clinical trials (82%) included male and female participants, and only 14% included children. Oncological disorders were the diseases most frequently investigated (20%). Most of clinical trials were registered by pharmaceutical companies. A few institutional review boards evaluated most of the clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The registration of clinical trials in Peru has improved quantitatively and qualitatively since it started, but its quantitative grow stopped in 2008. Since then, the number of registries has declined steadily. There is an influence of pharmaceutical companies in clinical trial registration.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical trial registration in the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) for studies from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and to identify the key characteristics that lead to prospective and retrospective registration.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study identified published, clinical trial studies through a search of PubMed, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if published on 1 January - 31 December 2015, at least one author was affiliated with at least one LAC country, the clinical trial was conducted in at least one LAC site, and the full text of the article was available. A manual search of reference lists was also conducted. ICTRP registration information and key trial characteristics were compared.
RESULTS: Of 1 502 CT references that met inclusion criteria, 297 were randomly-selected, 90.9% of which were published in English, 65% from Brazil, and 76.8% had a LAC author as the first author. The proportion of CT registered in the ICTRP was 59.9 %, of which 51.7% were registered prospectively. Clinicaltrials.gov was most frequently used registry (84.8%), followed by the Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos and the Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos. Key characteristics that favored registration were being in study phase 3 or 4 or being a multi-center study. Data was compared to a similar study from 2013 that reported a registration rate of only 19.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: Registration adherence and prospective registration have increased in LAC in recent years, but the proportion of unregistered CT remains high. While there are still many challenges to overcome, the adherence strategies implemented in recent years have proven effective.
OBJECTIVE: Determinar la prevalencia del registro de ensayos clínicos de América Latina y el Caribe en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos (ICTRP, por su sigla en inglés) y definir los elementos clave que fomentan el registro prospectivo y retrospectivo de estudios.
UNASSIGNED: Se realizó un estudio transversal para encontrar los ensayos clínicos publicados mediante una búsqueda en PubMed, LILACS (Centro Latinoamericano y del Caribe para Información en Ciencias de la Salud) y el Registro Central Cochrane de Ensayos Clínicos Controlados. Se incluyeron los estudios que habían sido publicados entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre del 2015, que tenían cuando menos un autor afiliado a uno o más países de América Latina y el Caribe, que se habían realizado al menos en un centro de América Latina y el Caribe, y que tenían el texto completo del artículo disponible. También se llevó a cabo una búsqueda manual en listas de referencia. Se comparó la información sobre registros de la ICTRP y las características clave de los ensayos clínicos.
RESULTS: De las 1 502 referencias que cumplieron los criterios de inclusión, se seleccionaron 297 aleatoriamente. De estas, 90,9% se habían publicado en inglés, 65% eran de Brasil y 76,8% tenían como primer autor un investigador de América Latina y el Caribe. La proporción de ensayos clínicos registrados en la ICTRP fue de 59,9%, de los cuales 51,7% se habían registrado prospectivamente. Clinicaltrials.gov fue el registro usado con mayor frecuencia (84,8%), seguido por el Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos y el Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos. Se determinó que las características clave que favorecían el registro eran que fuese un estudio de fase 3 o 4 o un estudio multicéntrico. Se compararon los datos con un estudio similar del 2013 en el que se había informado que la tasa de registro era de apenas 19,8%.
CONCLUSIONS: En América Latina y el Caribe se ha observado en los últimos años un aumento en el cumplimiento del registro y del registro prospectivo de ensayos clínicos, pero la proporción de estudios sin registrar sigue siendo alta. Sin embargo, aunque persisten muchos retos que se deben superar, las estrategias adoptadas en los últimos años para que se cumpla este requisito han sido eficaces.
OBJECTIVE: Determinar a prevalência do registro de estudos clínicos na Plataforma Internacional de Registro de Ensaios Clínicos (ICTRP) para estudos realizados na América Latina e Caribe (ALC) e identificar as principais características que conduzem ao registro prospectivo e retrospectivo.
UNASSIGNED: Em um estudo transversal, foram identificados os estudos clínicos publicados através de uma busca nas bases de dados PubMed, LILACS (Centro Latino-Americano e do Caribe de Informação em Ciências da Saúde) e Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Foram incluídos estudos publicados de 1o. de janeiro a 31 de dezembro de 2015, em que pelo menos um dos autores provinha de um país da ALC, realizados em um ou mais centros na ALC e que apresentavam o texto completo disponível. Foi também feita uma busca manual das listas de referências. Foram comparados os dados sobre o registro na ICTRP e as principais características dos estudos.
RESULTS: Das 1.502 referências de estudos clínicos que atenderam os critérios de inclusão, 297 foram selecionadas aleatoriamente. Verificou-se que 90,9% dos estudos foram publicados em inglês, 65% eram provenientes do Brasil e 76,8% tinham como primeiro autor um pesquisador da ALC. O percentual de registro dos estudos clínicos na ICTRP foi de 59,9%, sendo 51,7% registrado de forma prospectiva. Clinicaltrials.gov foi o registro mais usado (84,8%), seguido do Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos e do Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos. As principais características que contribuíram para o registro foram ser estudo de fase 3 ou 4 ou multicêntrico. Os dados foram comparados com um estudo semelhante realizado em 2013 que verificou uma taxa de registro de apenas 19,8%.
UNASSIGNED: Houve um aumento na adesão ao registro e no registro prospectivo na ALC nos últimos anos, porém o percentual de estudos clínicos não registrados continua alto. Embora ainda existam muitos desafios a serem vencidos, as estratégias de adesão implementadas nos últimos anos têm sido eficazes.

Low cancer clinical trial (CCT) enrollment may contribute to survival disparities affecting adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (ages 15-39 years). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether differences in CCT availability related to treatment site could explain the low CCT enrollment.
This prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at an academic children\'s hospital and its affiliated but geographically separated adult cancer hospital within a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. For consecutive, newly diagnosed AYA patients, it was determined whether an appropriate CCT existed nationally, was available at the treatment site, and was used for enrollment. Proportions of AYAs in these categories were compared between sites using the chi-square test.
One hundred fifty-two consecutive AYA patients were included from the children\'s hospital (n = 68; ages 15-20 years) and the adult cancer hospital (n = 84; ages 18-39 years). Although there was no difference in CCT existence for individual AYA patients by site (children\'s hospital [36 of 68 patients; 52.9%] vs adult cancer hospital [45 of 84 patients; 53.6%]; P = .938), CCT availability was significantly lower at the adult cancer hospital (14 of 84 patients [16.7%] vs 30 of 68 [44.1%] at the children\'s hospital; P < .001). The proportion of AYAs enrolled was low at both sites (8 of 68 patients [11.8%] vs 6 of 84 patients [7.1%], respectively; P = .327). Fewer existing CCTs were available at the adult cancer hospital (4 of 27 patients [14.8%] vs 8 of 14 patients [57.1%], respectively), and those were directed toward solid tumors and new agents.
Efforts to improve low CCT enrollment among AYAs should be differentiated by treatment site. In the adult setting, these efforts should be aimed at improving CCT availability by overcoming site-level barriers to opening existing CCTs.