Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:01:20.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges and successes of recruitment in the “angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in infants with single ventricle trial” of the Pediatric Heart Network

Part of: Pediatric Heart Network

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Nancy A. Pike ,
Victoria Pemberton ,
Kerstin Allen ,
Jeffrey P. Jacobs ,
Daphne T. Hsu ,
Alan B. Lewis ,
Nancy Ghanayem ,
Linda Lambert ,
Kari Crawford  and
Teresa Atz
...Show all authors
Nancy A. Pike*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
Victoria Pemberton
Affiliation:
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
Kerstin Allen
Affiliation:
New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts, United States of America
Jeffrey P. Jacobs
Affiliation:
The Congenital Heart Institute of Florida, All Children's Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States of America
Daphne T. Hsu
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, New York, United States of America
Alan B. Lewis
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
Nancy Ghanayem
Affiliation:
Division of Critical Care, Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America
Linda Lambert
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, Primary Children's Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America
Kari Crawford
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Levine Children's Hospital, Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America
Teresa Atz
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Caroline, United States of America
Rosalind Korsin
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America
Mingfen Xu
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
Chitra Ravishankar
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
James Cnota
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America
Gail D. Pearson
Affiliation:
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr N. Pike, PhD, RN, UCLA School of Nursing, 700 Tiverton Avenue, Factor Building Room no. 3-938, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States of America. Tel: 310 206 3683; Fax: 310 267 0413; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Identify trends of enrolment and key challenges when recruiting infants with complex cardiac diseases into a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled drug trial and assess the impact of efforts to share successful strategies on enrolment of subjects.

Methods

Rates of screening, eligibility, consent, and randomisation were determined for three consecutive periods of time. Sites collectively addressed barriers to recruitment and shared successful strategies resulting in the Inventory of Best Recruiting Practices. Study teams detailed institutional practices of recruitment in post-trial surveys that were compared with strategies of enrolment initially proposed in the Inventory.

Results

The number of screened patients increased by 30% between the Initial Period and the Intermediate Period (p = 0.007), whereas eligibility decreased slightly by 7%. Of those eligible for entry into the study, the rate of consent increased by 42% (p = 0.025) and randomisation increased by 71% (p = 0.10). During the Final Period, after launch of a competing trial, fewer patients were screened (−14%, p = 0.06), consented (−19%, p = 0.12), and randomised (−34%, p = 0.012). Practices of recruitment in the post-trial survey closely mirrored those in the Inventory.

Conclusions

Early identification and sharing of best strategies of recruitment among all recruiting sites can be effective in increasing recruitment of critically ill infants with congenital cardiac disease and possibly other populations. Strategies of recruitment should focus on those that build relationships with families and create partnerships with the medical providers who care for them. Competing studies pose challenges for enrolment in trials, but fostering trusting relationships with families can result in successful enrolment into multiple studies.

Keywords

Congenital heart diseaseclinical trialsfunctionally univentricular heart
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 248 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Silverman, WA. The future of clinical experimentation in neonatal medicine. Pediatrics 1994; 94: 932–938.Google Scholar
2. Caldwell, PHY, Murphy, SB, Butow, PN, Craig, JC. Clinical trials in children. Lancet 2004; 364: 803–811.Google Scholar
3. Roush, SW, Murphy, TV, and the Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA 2007; 298: 2155–2163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Hobar, JD, Soll, RF, Sutherland, JM, et al. A multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial of surfactant therapy for respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 959–965.Google Scholar
5. Smith, MA, Seibel, NL, Altekruse, SF, et al. Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2625–2634.Google Scholar
6. Caldwell, PH, Butow, PN, Craig, JC. Pediatricians’ attitudes toward randomized controlled trials involving children. J Pediatr 2002; 141: 798–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Singhal, N, Oberle, K, Darwish, A, Burgess, E. Attitudes of health-care providers toward research in newborn babies. J Perinatol 2004; 24: 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Harris Interactive Poll. Only a quarter (25%) of US adults would consider allowing a child of theirs to participate in a clinical research study. Health Care News 2004; 4: 1–8.Google Scholar
9. Pemberton, VL, Pearson, GD. No more hand-me-downs: research designed for children. Monitor 2009; 12: 55–60.Google Scholar
10. Sullivan, J. Subject recruitment and retention: barriers to success, Appl Clin Trials, 2004. Available at: http://appliedclinicaltrialsonline.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=89608 Google Scholar
11. Chlan, L, Guttormson, J, Tracy, MF, Lindstrom Brener, K. Strategies for overcoming site and recruitment challenges in research studies based in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2009; 18: 410–417.Google Scholar
12. Knox, CA, Burkhart, PV. Issues related to children participating in clinical research. J Pediatr Nurs 2007; 22: 310–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Tait, AR, Voepel-Lewis, T, Malviya, S. Participation of children in clinical trial research: factors that influence a parent's decision to consent. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 819–825.Google Scholar
14. Tait, AR, Voepel-Lewis, T, Malviya, S. Factors that influence parents’ assessments of the risks and benefits of research involving their children. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 727–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Hoehn, KS, Wernovsky, G, Rychik, J, et al. What factors are important to parent making decisions about neonatal research? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90: 267–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Nathan, AT, Hoehn, KS, Ittenbach, RF, et al. Assessment of parental decision-making in neonatal cardiac research: a pilot study. J Med Ethics 2010; 36: 106–110.Google Scholar
17. Rothmier, JD, Lasley, MV, Shapiro, GG. Factors influencing parent consent in pediatric clinical research. Pediatrics 2003; 111: 1037–1041.Google Scholar
18. Vollmer, WM. Recruiting children and their families into clinical trials: a case study. Control Clin Trials 1992; 13: 315–320.Google Scholar
19. McKechnie, L, Gill, AB. Consent for neonatal research. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006; 91: F374–F376.Google Scholar
20. Fries, JF, Krishnan, E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethic of new drug development. Arthritis Res Ther 2004; 6: R250–R255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Mahony, L, Sleeper, LA, Anderson, PAW, et al. The Pediatric Heart Network: a primer for the conduction of multicenter studies in children with congenital and acquired heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2006; 27: 191–198.Google Scholar
22. Anderson, PAW, Sleeper, LA, Mahony, L, et al. Contemporary outcomes after the Fontan procedure: a Pediatric Heart Network multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 85–98.Google Scholar
23. Newburger, J, Sleeper, LA, McCrindle, B, et al. Randomized trial of pulse steroid therapy in Kawasaki Disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 663–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Hsu, DT, Mital, S, Ravishankar, C, et al. Rationale and design of a trial of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in infants with single ventricle. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 37–45.Google Scholar
25. Hsu, DT, Zak, V, Mahony, L, et al. Enalapril in infants with single ventricle: results of a multicenter randomized trial. Circulation 2010; 122: 333–340.Google Scholar
26. Ohye, RG, Gaynor, JW, Ghanayem, NS, et al. Design and rationale of a randomized trial comparing the Blalock–Taussig and right ventricle-pulmonary artery shunts in the Norwood procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 136: 968–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Ohye, RG, Sleeper, LA, Mahony, L, et al. Comparison of shunt types in the Norwood procedure for single-ventricle lesions. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1980–1992.Google Scholar
28. Hunninghake, DB, Darby, CA, Probstfield, JL. Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 6S–30S.Google Scholar
29. Dalen, J, Annett, RD, Brody, JL, Perryman, ML. Influences upon pediatricians’ willingness to refer patients to clinical research. Open Access J Clin Trials 2010; 2: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Jenkins, V, Fallowfield, L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 2000; 82: 1783–1788.Google Scholar
31. Getz, KA. Conversations with study volunteers, Appl Clin Trials, 2010. Available at: http://appliedclinicaltrialsonline.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=668513.Google Scholar
32. Atz, AM, Travison, TG, Williams, IA, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and risk factors for perioperative death in neonates with single right ventricle and systemic outflow tract obstruction: screening data from the Pediatric Heart Network Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 140: 1245–1250.Google Scholar
33. Golec, L, Gibbins, S, Dunn, MS, Hebert, P. Informed consent in the NICU setting: an ethically optimal model for research solicitation. J Perinatol 2004; 24: 783–791.Google Scholar
34. Children and clinical studies: no more hand-me-down-research. Retrieved June 12, 2011, from http://www.ChildrenandClinicalStudies.nhlbi.nih.gov Google Scholar
35. Hoffman, TM, Taeed, R, Niles, JP, McMillin, MA, Perkins, LA, Feltes, TF. Parental factors impacting the enrollment of children in cardiac critical care clinical trials. Pediatr Cardiol 2007; 28: 167–171.Google Scholar
36. Varma, S, Jenkins, T, Wendler, D. How do children and parents make decisions about pediatric clinical research? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2008; 30: 823–828.Google Scholar
37. Rempel, GR, Cender, LM, Lynam, MJ, Sandor, GG, Farguharson, D. Parents’ perspectives on decision making after antenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004; 33: 64–70.Google Scholar
38. Morley, CJ, Lau, R, Davis, PG, Morse, C. What do parents think about enrolling their premature babies in several research studies? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90: F225–F228.Google Scholar