Ricardo Almeida-Magana1, Hanna Maroof2, Jack Grierson3, Rosie Clow3, Eoin Dinneen2, Tarek Al-Hammouri2, Nicola Muirhead4, Chris Brew-Graves4, John Kelly3,2, Greg Shaw2. 1. Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, 3rd Floor, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK. r.magana@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Urology, Westmoreland Street Hospital, University College London Hospital, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH, UK. 3. Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, Charles Bell House, 3rd Floor, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK. 4. NCITA Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Medicine, University College London, Charles Bell House, 2nd Floor, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TY, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent. METHODS: A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation. RESULTS: Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation. CONCLUSION: Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent. METHODS: A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation. RESULTS: Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation. CONCLUSION: Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.
Authors: Christian M Simon; Helen A Schartz; Gary E Rosenthal; Eric L Eisenstein; David W Klein Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Christine Grady; Steven R Cummings; Michael C Rowbotham; Michael V McConnell; Euan A Ashley; Gagandeep Kang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Janice L Krieger; Dorothy Hagmajer; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Iain C Sanderson; Jihad S Obeid; Kapil Chalil Madathil; Katherine Gerken; Katrina Fryar; Daniel Rugg; Colin E Alstad; Randall Alexander; Kathleen T Brady; Anand K Gramopadhye; Jay Moskowitz Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Aaron M Orkin; Peter J Gill; Davina Ghersi; Lisa Campbell; Jeremy Sugarman; Richard Emsley; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Charles Weijer; John Simes; Tanja Rombey; Hywel C Williams; Janet Wittes; David Moher; Dawn P Richards; Yvette Kasamon; Kenneth Getz; Sally Hopewell; Kay Dickersin; Taixiang Wu; Ana Patricia Ayala; Kenneth F Schulz; Sabine Calleja; Isabelle Boutron; Joseph S Ross; Robert M Golub; Karim M Khan; Cindy Mulrow; Nandi Siegfried; Joerg Heber; Naomi Lee; Pamela Reed Kearney; Rhoda K Wanyenze; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Rebecca Williams; Nita Bhandari; Peter Jüni; An-Wen Chan Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Arash Naeim; Sarah Dry; David Elashofff; Zuoer Xie; Antonia Petruse; Clara Magyar; Lilliana Johansen; Gabriela Werre; Clara Lajonchere; Neil Wenger Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-05-31
Authors: Eoin Dinneen; Jack Grierson; Ricardo Almeida-Magana; Rosie Clow; Aiman Haider; Clare Allen; Daniel Heffernan-Ho; Alex Freeman; Tim Briggs; Senthil Nathan; Susan Mallett; Chris Brew-Graves; Nicola Muirhead; Norman R Williams; Elena Pizzo; Raj Persad; Jon Aning; Lyndsey Johnson; Jon Oxley; Neil Oakley; Susan Morgan; Fawzia Tahir; Imran Ahmad; Lorenzo Dutto; Jonathan M Salmond; Anand Kelkar; John Kelly; Greg Shaw Journal: Trials Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 2.728