Ingrid U Scott1, Paul C VanVeldhuisen2, Michael S Ip3, Barbara A Blodi3, Neal L Oden4, Maria Figueroa4. 1. Departments of Ophthalmology and Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 2. The Emmes Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Electronic address: pvanveldhuisen@emmes.com. 3. University of Wisconsin Fundus Photograph Reading Center, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. The Emmes Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate recruitment rates of patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) into phase III clinical trials evaluating intravitreal pharmacotherapy for treatment of macular edema in the United States, describe recruitment techniques in the Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2), and assess which SCORE2 recruitment techniques were most useful to principal investigators and clinical coordinators. DESIGN: Retrospective survey within a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Recruitment rates of the Standard Care versus COrticosteroid for REtinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE)-CRVO trial, CRUISE Study, and SCORE2 were calculated. Techniques employed to facilitate recruitment in SCORE2 are described, and a survey was sent to the principal investigator and primary clinical coordinator of each SCORE2 site to assess the usefulness of recruitment techniques. RESULTS: In SCORE2, the recruitment rate of 0.39 participants/month/site was higher than in SCORE-CRVO (0.10 participants/month/site) and CRUISE (0.23 participants/month/site). For study design factors in SCORE2, investigators and coordinators rated provision of standard-of-care treatments to all study participants as having a major positive impact on recruitment. A monthly e-newsletter to site staff and communication by physician members of the SCORE2 Executive Committee to sites upon each randomization were perceived as effective means to help site staff focus on recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The SCORE2 recruitment rate compares favorably to previous clinical trials investigating intravitreal pharmacotherapy for treatment of CRVO-associated macular edema. Study design factors, methods of communication with sites, and recruitment techniques implemented in SCORE2 were well received by investigators and coordinators and may be helpful in future clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate recruitment rates of patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) into phase III clinical trials evaluating intravitreal pharmacotherapy for treatment of macular edema in the United States, describe recruitment techniques in the Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2), and assess which SCORE2 recruitment techniques were most useful to principal investigators and clinical coordinators. DESIGN: Retrospective survey within a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Recruitment rates of the Standard Care versus COrticosteroid for REtinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE)-CRVO trial, CRUISE Study, and SCORE2 were calculated. Techniques employed to facilitate recruitment in SCORE2 are described, and a survey was sent to the principal investigator and primary clinical coordinator of each SCORE2 site to assess the usefulness of recruitment techniques. RESULTS: In SCORE2, the recruitment rate of 0.39 participants/month/site was higher than in SCORE-CRVO (0.10 participants/month/site) and CRUISE (0.23 participants/month/site). For study design factors in SCORE2, investigators and coordinators rated provision of standard-of-care treatments to all study participants as having a major positive impact on recruitment. A monthly e-newsletter to site staff and communication by physician members of the SCORE2 Executive Committee to sites upon each randomization were perceived as effective means to help site staff focus on recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The SCORE2 recruitment rate compares favorably to previous clinical trials investigating intravitreal pharmacotherapy for treatment of CRVO-associated macular edema. Study design factors, methods of communication with sites, and recruitment techniques implemented in SCORE2 were well received by investigators and coordinators and may be helpful in future clinical trials.
Authors: Michael S Ip; Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Barbara A Blodi; Marian Fisher; Lawrence J Singerman; Michael Tolentino; Clement K Chan; Victor H Gonzalez Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09
Authors: David Boyer; Jeffrey Heier; David M Brown; W Lloyd Clark; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Georg Groetzbach; Oliver Zeitz; Rupert Sandbrink; Xiaoping Zhu; Karola Beckmann; Julia A Haller Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Frank G Holz; Johann Roider; Yuichiro Ogura; Jean-François Korobelnik; Christian Simader; Georg Groetzbach; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Florian Hiemeyer; Karola Beckmann; Oliver Zeitz; Rupert Sandbrink Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: David M Brown; Peter A Campochiaro; Rishi P Singh; Zhengrong Li; Sarah Gray; Namrata Saroj; Amy Chen Rundle; Roman G Rubio; Wendy Yee Murahashi Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Julia A Haller; Francesco Bandello; Rubens Belfort; Mark S Blumenkranz; Mark Gillies; Jeffrey Heier; Anat Loewenstein; Young-Hee Yoon; Marie-Louise Jacques; Jenny Jiao; Xiao-Yan Li; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 12.079