Clinical trials are a critical step in the meaningful translation of biomedical discoveries into effective diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Quality by design (QbD) is a framework for embedding quality into the design, conduct, and monitoring of clinical trials. Here we report the feasibility and acceptability of a process for implementing QbD in clinical research at an academic health center via multidisciplinary design studios aimed at identifying and prioritizing critical to quality (CTQ) factors.

The Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative’s Principles Document served as a guide to identify and categorize key CTQ factors, defined as elements of a clinical trial that are critical to patient safety and data integrity. Individual trials were reviewed in CTQ design studios (CTQ-DS) and the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention was examined through post-meeting interviews and surveys.

Eight clinical research protocols underwent the QbD evaluation process. The protocols ranged from multicenter randomized clinical trials to nonrandomized investigator-initiated studies. A developmental evaluation informed the iterative refinement of the CTQ-DS process, and post-meeting surveys revealed that CTQ-DS were highly valued by principal investigators (PIs) and resulted in multiple protocol changes.

The present study demonstrated that QbD principles can be implemented to inform the design and conduct of clinical research at an academic health center using multidisciplinary design studios aimed at identifying and prioritizing CTQ elements. This approach was well received by the participants including study PIs. Future research will need to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in improving the quality of clinical research.

Registry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials.

We built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design.

Registry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field.

Registries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.

Collecting patient-reported follow-up data for prospective studies in the emergency department (ED) is challenging in this minimal continuity setting. The objective of this study was to determine whether text messaging study participants involved in an ongoing randomized trial resulted in a lower rate of attrition as compared to conventional telephone follow-up.

This was a nested cohort analysis of research participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial assessing head injury discharge instructions. During the first 4 months of study follow-up, participants were contacted by a conventional telephone call. For the final 3 months, participants were contacted by text messaging following the first failed telephone attempt.

A total of 118 patients were enrolled in the study (78 underwent conventional follow-up, and 40 received text messages). During the period of conventional follow-up, 3 participants withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 75 participants, 24 (32.0%) at 2 weeks and 32 (42.7%) at 4 weeks were unable to be contacted. Of the 40 participants receiving a reminder text message, 4 (10.0%) at 2 weeks and 10 (25.0%) at 4 weeks were unable to be contacted. Overall, text messaging study participants decreased attrition by 22% (95% CI: 5.9%, 34.7%) and 17.7% (95% CI: -0.8%, 33.3%) at 2- and 4-week follow-ups, respectively.

In this ED cohort participating in a randomized trial, text message reminders of upcoming telephone follow-up interviews decreased the rate of attrition. Text messaging is a viable, low-cost communication strategy that can improve follow-up participation in prospective research studies.