Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Multiple Sclerosis | Research

Optimising recruitment in clinical trials for progressive multiple sclerosis: observational analysis from the MS-SMART and MS-STAT2 randomised controlled trials

Authors: Thomas Williams, Sarah Alexander, James Blackstone, Floriana De Angelis, Nevin John, Anisha Doshi, Judy Beveridge, Marie Braisher, Emma Gray, Jeremy Chataway, on behalf of the MS-SMART and MS-STAT2 Investigators

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Slower than planned recruitment is a major factor contributing to the delay or failure of randomised controlled trials to report on time. There is a limited evidence base regarding the optimisation of recruitment strategies. Here we performed an observational review of our experience in recruitment for two large randomised controlled trials for people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. We aimed to explicitly determine those factors which can facilitate trial recruitment in progressive neurodegenerative disease.

Methods

Recruitment data from the sequential MS-SMART [NCT01910259] and MS-STAT2 [NCT03387670] UK randomised controlled trials was reviewed from the largest recruiting site, University College London (UCL). The trial population was similar which allowed comparison over the two recruitment periods of 2015–2016 and 2018–2021. This included sources of referral, progress through stages of recruitment, reasons for participant ineligibility and the impact of publicity events upon recruitment.

Results

In MS-SMART, 18% of patients contacted were enrolled, compared to 27% for MS-STAT2. Online registration of interest portals provided the greatest number of referrals (76% in MS-SMART, and 51% in MS-STAT2), with publicity in national media outlets producing a demonstrable increase in the number of potential participants. The introduction of an online self-screening questionnaire for MS-STAT2 resulted in 67% of potential participants (3080 of 4605) automatically determining their own ineligibility. In both studies, however, around 60% of those directly telephoned to discuss the study were not eligible, with difficulties related to travel to trial visits, or excluded medication, being the most common issues. Eighty-four percent of those deemed potentially eligible following telephone calls were enrolled in the MS-STAT2 study, compared to only 55% for MS-SMART.

Conclusions

Through a detailed review of recruiting participants at the largest centre into two large randomised controlled trials with similar entry criteria, we have identified a number of approaches that may improve recruitment efficiency. We highlight here the importance of mandatory online self-screening questionnaires, a coordinated publicity campaign, and simple interventions such as eligibility checklists and appointment reminders. Recruitment approaches should be further assessed through a studies within a trial (SWAT) design.

Trial registration

MS-SMART: NCT01910259; registered July 2013 and MS-STAT2: NCT03387670; registered Jan 2018
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Woodcock J, Ware JH, Miller PW, McMurray JJV, Harrington DP, Drazen JM. Clinical trials series. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2167.CrossRef Woodcock J, Ware JH, Miller PW, McMurray JJV, Harrington DP, Drazen JM. Clinical trials series. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2167.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard — lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2175–81.PubMedCrossRef Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard — lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2175–81.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Duley L, Gillman A, Duggan M, Belson S, Knox J, McDonald A, et al. What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK. Trials. 2018;19(1):1–7.CrossRef Duley L, Gillman A, Duggan M, Belson S, Knox J, McDonald A, et al. What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK. Trials. 2018;19(1):1–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:1–8.CrossRef McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:1–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(2):1–145. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(2):1–145.
7.
go back to reference Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: Results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15(1):1–7.CrossRef Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: Results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15(1):1–7.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147. Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147.
9.
go back to reference Chataway J, De Angelis F, Connick P, Parker RA, Plantone D, Doshi A, et al. Efficacy of three neuroprotective drugs in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS-SMART): a phase 2b, multiarm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(3):214–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chataway J, De Angelis F, Connick P, Parker RA, Plantone D, Doshi A, et al. Efficacy of three neuroprotective drugs in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS-SMART): a phase 2b, multiarm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(3):214–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
go back to reference University College London. MS-STAT2 UCL Webpage. University College London. MS-STAT2 UCL Webpage.
16.
go back to reference Thadani SR, Weng C, Bigger JT, Ennever JF, Wajngurt D. Electronic screening improves efficiency in clinical trial recruitment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(6):869–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Thadani SR, Weng C, Bigger JT, Ennever JF, Wajngurt D. Electronic screening improves efficiency in clinical trial recruitment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(6):869–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Collins CDE, Ivry B, Bowen JD, Cheng EM, Dobson R, Goodin DS, et al. A comparative analysis of patient-reported expanded disability status scale tools. Mult Scler. 2016;22(10):1349–58.PubMedCrossRef Collins CDE, Ivry B, Bowen JD, Cheng EM, Dobson R, Goodin DS, et al. A comparative analysis of patient-reported expanded disability status scale tools. Mult Scler. 2016;22(10):1349–58.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Barcellos LF, Horton M, Shao X, Bellesis KH, Chinn T, Waubant E, et al. A validation study for remote testing of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2021;27(5):795–8.CrossRef Barcellos LF, Horton M, Shao X, Bellesis KH, Chinn T, Waubant E, et al. A validation study for remote testing of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2021;27(5):795–8.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:1–17. Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:1–17.
25.
go back to reference Madurasinghe VW, Bower P, Eldridge S, Collier D, Graffy J, Treweek S, et al. Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of ‘studies within a trial’ (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):1–8.CrossRef Madurasinghe VW, Bower P, Eldridge S, Collier D, Graffy J, Treweek S, et al. Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of ‘studies within a trial’ (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):1–8.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cureton L, Marian IR, Barber VS, Parker A, Torgerson DJ, Hopewell S. Randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to postal questionnaires (PROMPTS). Trials. 2021;22(1):1–10.CrossRef Cureton L, Marian IR, Barber VS, Parker A, Torgerson DJ, Hopewell S. Randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to postal questionnaires (PROMPTS). Trials. 2021;22(1):1–10.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Gardner HR, Albarquoni L, El Feky A, Gillies K, Treweek S. A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials. F1000Research. 2020;9:86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gardner HR, Albarquoni L, El Feky A, Gillies K, Treweek S. A systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials. F1000Research. 2020;9:86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Lech S, O’Sullivan JL, Wellmann L, Supplieth J, Döpfmer S, Gellert P, et al. Recruiting general practitioners and patients with dementia into a cluster randomised controlled trial: strategies, barriers and facilitators. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):1–13.CrossRef Lech S, O’Sullivan JL, Wellmann L, Supplieth J, Döpfmer S, Gellert P, et al. Recruiting general practitioners and patients with dementia into a cluster randomised controlled trial: strategies, barriers and facilitators. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):1–13.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Darmawan I, Bakker C, Brockman TA, Patten CA, Eder M. The role of social media in enhancing clinical trial recruitment: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):1–15.CrossRef Darmawan I, Bakker C, Brockman TA, Patten CA, Eder M. The role of social media in enhancing clinical trial recruitment: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):1–15.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Albrecht TL, Eggly SS, Gleason MEJ, Harper FWK, Foster TS, Peterson AM, et al. Influence of clinical communication on patients’ decision making on participation in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(16):2666–73.PubMedCrossRef Albrecht TL, Eggly SS, Gleason MEJ, Harper FWK, Foster TS, Peterson AM, et al. Influence of clinical communication on patients’ decision making on participation in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(16):2666–73.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Wuensch A, Goelz T, Ihorst G, Terris DD, Bertz H, Bengel J, et al. Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians’ discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):1–9.CrossRef Wuensch A, Goelz T, Ihorst G, Terris DD, Bertz H, Bengel J, et al. Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians’ discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):1–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Optimising recruitment in clinical trials for progressive multiple sclerosis: observational analysis from the MS-SMART and MS-STAT2 randomised controlled trials
Authors
Thomas Williams
Sarah Alexander
James Blackstone
Floriana De Angelis
Nevin John
Anisha Doshi
Judy Beveridge
Marie Braisher
Emma Gray
Jeremy Chataway
on behalf of the MS-SMART and MS-STAT2 Investigators
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06588-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue