Despite the intuitive attractiveness of bringing research to participants rather than making them come to central study sites, widespread decentralized enrollment has not been common in clinical trials.

The need for clinical research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with innovations in technology, led us to use a decentralized trial approach in our Phase 2 COVID-19 trial. We used real-time acquisition and transmission of health-related data using home-based monitoring devices and mobile applications to assess outcomes. This approach not only avoids spreading COVID-19 but it also can support inclusion of participants in more diverse socioeconomic circumstances and in rural settings.

Our team developed and deployed a decentralized trial platform to support patient engagement and adverse event reporting. Clinicians, engineers, and informaticians on our research team developed a Clinical-Trial-in-a-Box tool to optimally collect and analyze data from multiple decentralized platforms.

Applying the decentralized model in Long COVID, using digital health technology and personal devices integrated with our telehealth platform, we share the lessons learned from our work, along with challenges and future possibilities.

Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) have complementary missions. We replicated a 2008 survey of CTSA-PBRN leaders to understand how organizational relationships have evolved.

We surveyed 60 CTSA community engagement (CE) Directors and 135 PBRN Directors and analyzed data using between and within-group comparisons.

In total, 43% of CTSA CE Directors (26/60) and 42% of PBRN Directors (57/135) responded. Quantitative responses revealed growing alignment between CTSA/PBRN perceptions, with a few areas of discordance. CE Directors noted declining financial support for PBRNs. PBRN Directors identified greater CTSA effectiveness in PBRN engagement, consultation, and collaborative grant submissions. Qualitative data revealed divergent experiences across CTSA/PBRN programs.

Relationships between CTSAs and PBRNs are maturing; for some that means strengthening and for others a growing vulnerability. Findings suggest a mutual opportunity for PBRNs and CTSAs around applied research. Studies to characterize exemplar CTSA-PBRN collaborations are needed.

The time required to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is a frequent subject of efforts to reduce unnecessary delays in initiating clinical trials. This study was conducted by and for IRB directors to better understand factors affecting approval times as a first step in developing a quality improvement framework.

807 IRB-approved clinical trials from 5 University of California campuses were analyzed to identify operational and clinical trial characteristics influencing IRB approval times.

High workloads, low staff ratios, limited training, and the number and types of ancillary reviews resulted in longer approval times. Biosafety reviews and the need for billing coverage analysis were ancillary reviews that contributed to the longest delays. Federally funded and multisite clinical trials had shorter approval times. Variability in between individual committees at each institution reviewing phase 3 multisite clinical trials also contributed to delays for some protocols. Accreditation was not associated with shorter approval times.

Reducing unnecessary delays in obtaining IRB approval will require a quality improvement framework that considers operational and study characteristics as well as the larger institutional regulatory environment.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced protein 3 (TNFAIP3) is a multifunctional ubiquitin binding and editing enzyme that regulates inflammation. Genetic studies have implicated polymorphisms within the TNFAIP3 locus to the development of numerous immune-related diseases. This study evaluated the frequencies of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) within the exonic regions of the TNFAIP3 gene and an associated point mutation from the Illumina array among a predominantly Hispanic cohort.

Genomic DNA was obtained from 721 participants and sequencing of all TNFAIP3 exons and an intergenic point mutation (rs6920220) was performed. In-vitro functional assessment was performed by transfecting mutated TNFAIP3 constructs into TNFAIP3 knockout cells containing the NF-kB luciferase reporter and stimulating with TNFα. Comparative statistics were performed with Student’s t-test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables.

Sequencing revealed two missense SNPs, rs146534657:A>G and rs2230926:T>G, both within exon 3 of TNFAIP3, which encodes the protein’s deubiquitinating enzymatic domain. Frequencies of all three point mutations differed significantly across racial groups (χ2-test, P = 0.014 to P < 0.001). Compared to Caucasians, rs146534657:A>G was overrepresented among Hispanics (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] 4.05 [1.24−13.18]), and rs2230926:T>G was more prevalent among African-Americans (OR [95% CI] 3.65 [1.58−8.43]). In-vitro assays confirm rs146534657:A>G and rs2230926:T>G decrease the ability of TNFAIP3 to abrogate NF-κB activation by 2-fold (P < 0.01) and 1.7-fold (P < 0.01), respectively.

This study reports the frequency of rs146534657:A>G among Hispanics and is the first to evaluate its potential physiologic impact, establishing a basis for future research as a potential biomarker among this population.

The Trial Innovation Network (TIN) is a collaborative initiative within the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. To improve and innovate the conduct of clinical trials, it is exploring the uses of gamification to better engage the trial workforce and improve the efficiencies of trial activities. The gamification structures described in this article are part of a TIN website gamification toolkit, available online to the clinical trial scientific community.

The game designers used existing electronic trial platforms to gamify the tasks required to meet trial start-up timelines to create friendly competitions. Key indicators and familiar metrics were mapped to scoreboards. Webinars were organized to share and applaud trial and game performance.

Game scores were significantly associated with an increase in achieving start-up milestones in activation, institutional review board (IRB) submission, and IRB approval times, indicating the probability of completing site activation faster by using games. Overall game enjoyment and feelings that the game did not apply too much pressure appeared to be an important moderator of performance in one trial but had little effect on performance in a second.

This retrospective examination of available data from gaming experiences may be a first-of-kind use in clinical trials. There are signals that gaming may accelerate performance and increase enjoyment during the start-up phase of a trial. Isolating the effect of gamification on trial outcomes will depend on a larger sampling from future trials, using well-defined, hypothesis-driven statistical analysis plans.

A core challenge of a multidisciplinary and multi-organizational translational research enterprise such as a Clinical and Translational Research Award (CTSA) is coordinating and integrating the work of individuals, workgroups, and organizations accustomed to working independently and autonomously. Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) undertook and studied a multifacted intervention to address this challenge and to create a culture of systems thinking, process awareness, responsive to others' needs, and shared decision-making.

The intervention, based on relational coordination, included 1) relational interventions, in three staff retreats and a diagnostic survey to provide feedback on the current quality of relational coordination, and 2) structural interventions, in the launching of five new cross-functional teams with regular meeting structures.

A mixed-methods evaluation yielded quantitative data via two types of team surveys and qualitative data via interviews and meeting observations.

The findings suggest that interventions to improve relational coordination are feasible for CTSAs, including good fidelity to the model and staff/physician engagement. Survey and interview data suggest model improvements in coordination and alignment. Further research about their optimal design is warranted.

Federal grant funding to support infrastructure development of translational biomedical research centers is a form of public health intervention. Establishing rigorous methods for measuring center success and outcomes is essential to justify continued funding.

Bibliometric data compiled from a 5-year funding cycle of neurodegeneration and translational neuroscience research center were analyzed using the package bibliometrix for open-source software R and the NIH-developed research tool iCite.

The research team and their collaborators (n = 485) produced 157 grant-citing publications from 2015–2020. The science was produced by small research teams clustered around three main communities of topics: Alzheimer’s Disease, brain imaging, and neuropsychological testing in the elderly. Using the relative citation ratio, the publications produced by the research team were found to be influential when compared to other R01-funded publications.

Recent developments in bibliometric analysis expand beyond traditional measurement capabilities to better understand the characteristics, outcomes, and influences of research teams. These findings can be used to inform researchers and institutions about research team composition, productivity, and success. Measures of research influence may be used to justify return on investment to funders.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the development and implementation of hundreds of clinical trials across the USA. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN), funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, was an established clinical research network that pivoted to respond to the pandemic.

The TIN’s three Trial Innovation Centers, Recruitment Innovation Center, and 66 Clinical and Translational Science Award Hub institutions, collaborated to adapt to the pandemic’s rapidly changing landscape, playing central roles in the planning and execution of pivotal studies addressing COVID-19. Our objective was to summarize the results of these collaborations and lessons learned.

The TIN provided 29 COVID-related consults between March 2020 and December 2020, including 6 trial participation expressions of interest and 8 community engagement studios from the Recruitment Innovation Center. Key lessons learned from these experiences include the benefits of leveraging an established infrastructure, innovations surrounding remote research activities, data harmonization and central safety reviews, and early community engagement and involvement.

Our experience highlighted the benefits and challenges of a multi-institutional approach to clinical research during a pandemic.

Sustainment refers to continued intervention delivery over time, while continuing to produce intended outcomes, often with ongoing adaptations, which are purposeful changes to the design or delivery of an intervention to improve its fit or effectiveness. The Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP), a complex, culturally competent intervention, was implemented in two transplant programs to reduce disparities in Hispanic/Latinx living donor kidney transplant rates. This study longitudinally examined the influence of adaptations on HKTP sustainment.

Qualitative interviews, learning collaborative calls, and telephone meetings with physicians, administrators, and staff (n = 55) were conducted over three years of implementation to identify HKTP adaptations. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded was used to classify adaptation types and frequency, which were compared across sites over time.

Across sites, more adaptations were made in the first year (n = 47), then fell and plateaued in the two remaining years (n = 35). Adaptations at Site-A were consistent across years (2017: n = 18, 2018: n = 17, 2019: n = 14), while Site-B made considerably fewer adaptations after the first year (2017: n = 29, 2018: n = 18, 2019: n = 21). Both sites proportionally made mostly skipping (32%), adding (20%), tweaking (20%), and substituting (16%) adaptation types. Skipping- and substituting-type adaptations were made due to institutional structural characteristics and lack of available resources, respectively. However, Site-A’s greater proportion of skipping-type adaptations was attributed to greater system complexity, and Site-B’s greater proportion of adding-type adaptation was attributed to the egalitarian team-based culture.

Our findings can help prepare implementers to expect certain context-specific adaptations and preemptively avoid those that hinder sustainment.

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.

There is significant interest in the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and concern over potential adverse effects since these medications upregulate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 host cell entry receptor ACE2. Recent studies on ACE-I and ARB in COVID-19 were limited by excluding outpatients, excluding patients by age, analyzing ACE-I and ARB together, imputing missing data, and/or diagnosing COVID-19 by chest computed tomography without definitive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), all of which are addressed here.

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1023 COVID-19 patients diagnosed by RT-PCR at Stanford Hospital through April 8, 2020 with a minimum follow-up time of 14 days to investigate the association between ACE-I or ARB use with outcomes.

Use of ACE-I or ARB medications was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death. Compared to patients with charted past medical history, there was a lower risk of hospitalization for patients on ACE-I (odds ratio (OR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19–0.97; P = 0.0426) and ARB (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.90; P = 0.0270). Compared to patients with hypertension not on ACE-I or ARB, patients on ARB medications had a lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01–0.88; P = 0.0381).

These findings suggest that the use of ACE-I and ARB is not associated with adverse outcomes and may be associated with improved outcomes in COVID-19, which is immediately relevant to care of the many patients on these medications.