Effective recruitment of participants to a phase I study using the internet and publicity releases through charities and patient organisations: analysis of the adaptive study of IL-2 dose on regulatory T cells in type 1 diabetes (DILT1D)

James Heywood, Marina Evangelou, Donna Goymer, Jane Kennet, Katerina Anselmiova, Catherine Guy, Criona O'Brien, Sarah Nutland, Judy Brown, Neil M Walker, John A Todd, Frank Waldron-Lynch, James Heywood, Marina Evangelou, Donna Goymer, Jane Kennet, Katerina Anselmiova, Catherine Guy, Criona O'Brien, Sarah Nutland, Judy Brown, Neil M Walker, John A Todd, Frank Waldron-Lynch

Abstract

Background: A barrier to the successful development of new disease treatments is the timely recruitment of participants to experimental medicine studies that are primarily designed to investigate biological mechanisms rather than evaluate clinical efficacy. The aim of this study was to analyse the performance of three recruitment sources and the effect of publicity events during the Adaptive study of IL-2 dose on regulatory T cells in type 1 diabetes (DILT1D).

Methods: The final study outcome, demography, disease duration, residence and the effect of publicity events on the performance of three recruitment sources (clinics, type 1 diabetes (T1D) disease register and the internet) were analysed from a bespoke DILT1D recruitment database. For the internet source, the origin of website hits in relation to publicity events was also evaluated.

Results: A total of 735 potentially eligible participants were approached to identify the final 45 DILT1D participants. A total of 477 (64%) were identified via the disease register, but only 59 (12%) responded to contact. A total of 317 individuals registered with the DILT1D study team. Self-referral via the study website generated 170 (54%) registered individuals and was the most popular and successful source, with 88 (28%) sourced from diabetes clinics and 59 (19%) from the disease register. Of those with known T1D duration (N = 272), the internet and clinics sources identified a larger number (57, 21%) of newly diagnosed T1D (<100 days post-diagnosis) compared to the register (1, 0.4%). The internet extended the geographical reach of the study, enabling both national and international participation. Targeted website posts and promotional events from organisations supporting T1D research and treatment during the trial were essential to the success of the internet recruitment strategy.

Conclusions: Analysis of the DILT1D study recruitment outcomes illustrates the utility of an active internet recruitment strategy, supported by patient groups and charities, funding agencies and sponsors, in successfully conducting an early phase study in T1D. This recruitment strategy should now be evaluated in late-stage trials to develop treatments for T1D and other diseases.

Trial registration: NCT01827735 (registered: 4 April 2013); ISRCTN27852285 (registered: 23 March 2013); DRN767 (registered: 21 January 2013).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Gender and duration of type 1 diabetes of eligible potential participants in DILT1D. a) Males and females were equally likely to decline to participate as to enrol, with similar proportions observed across the final trial outcomes regardless of recruitment source. b) Both the clinics and internet sources were effective in identifying newly diagnosed cases of T1D (less than 100-day duration) compared to the register. A total of 19 individuals were registered at diagnosis (clinics = 12, internet = 6, register = 1). The internet source identified the largest number of cases but the clinics source was the most efficient method of locating eligible participants. Median and interquartile range shown for 246 eligible participants with less than two years duration of type 1 diabetes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Consort diagram for potential DILT1D study participants registered on the DILT1D database until the point of treatment. The most successful method of registering potential participants was via self-referral from the study website (internet). Once individuals registered with the study team, similar proportions from each source proceeded to trial enrolment. Participants who were negative for autoantibodies were from the clinics (N = 2), internet (N = 2) and register (N = 1) (not permitted - outside the EU or registered after last participant treated, non-communicators - initially registered but did not respond to messages from DILT1D team).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Geographical spread of DILT1D study participants residence by recruitment source (N = 45). a) The internet source (blue) extended the geographical reach of the study, allowing international participation. b) The clinics (green) and register sources (red) enabled local and national recruitment. c) On average, participants recruited from the internet source (204.1 km) travelled further on average than those recruited from the clinics (54.7 km) or register (105.9 km).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Analysis of website traffic for the DILT1D study website. a) Website activity showing the number and origin of website hits per week and the relationship to publicity events undertaken during the trial. b) The average number of weekly website referrals before each publicity event and after, showing that the joint press release from the University of Cambridge and The Wellcome Trust had the greatest impact on website activity, with much of that increase being from science news at Wired.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Cumulative registration of potential DILT1D participants. Individual publicity events were observed to impact different recruitment sources with the University of Cambridge and Wellcome Trust increasing internet registration, while the Diabetes UK post increased the clinics and register sources.

References

    1. Association of Medical Research Charities, Ipsos MORI. Public support for research in the NHS. Association of Medical Research Charities. June 2011. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Kasenda B, von Elm E, You J, Blümle A, Tomonaga Y, Saccilotto R, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1045–51. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.1361.
    1. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000496. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496.
    1. Farrell B, Kenyon S, Shakur H. Managing clinical trials. Trials. 2010;11:78. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-78.
    1. Shere M, Zhao XY, Koren G. The role of social media in recruiting for clinical trials in pregnancy. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092744.
    1. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyurus E, Green A, Soltesz G. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989–2003 and predicted new cases 2005–20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet. 2009;373(9680):2027–33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60568-7.
    1. Atkinson MA, Eisenbarth GS, Michels AW. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet. 2014;383(9911):69–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60591-7.
    1. Group DCaCTR Hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes. 1997;46(2):271–86. doi: 10.2337/diab.46.2.271.
    1. Liu E, Eisenbarth GS. Type 1A diabetes mellitus-associated autoimmunity. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002;31(2):391–410. doi: 10.1016/S0889-8529(01)00017-2.
    1. Steffes MW, Sibley S, Jackson M, Thomas W. beta-cell function and the development of diabetes-related complications in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(3):832–6. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.832.
    1. Barnard K, Thomas S, Royle P, Noyes K, Waugh N. Fear of hypoglycaemia in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-50.
    1. Roep BO, Atkinson M, von Herrath M. Satisfaction (not) guaranteed: re-evaluating the use of animal models of type 1 diabetes. Nat Rev Immunol. 2004;4(12):989–97. doi: 10.1038/nri1502.
    1. Waldron-Lynch F, Herold KC. Immunomodulatory therapy to preserve pancreatic β-cell function in type 1 diabetes. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(6):439–52. doi: 10.1038/nrd3402.
    1. Sherry N, Hagopian W, Ludvigsson J, Jain SM, Wahlen J, Ferry RJ, Jr, et al. Teplizumab for treatment of type 1 diabetes (Protege study): 1-year results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9790):487–97. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60931-8.
    1. Waldron-Lynch F, Kareclas P, Irons K, Walker NM, Mander A, Wicker LS, et al. Rationale and study design of the Adaptive study of IL-2 dose on regulatory T cells in type 1 diabetes (DILT1D): a non-randomised, open label, adaptive dose finding trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(6):e005559. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005559.
    1. ImmunoBase. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International and the Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom. 2001. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Dendrou CA, Plagnol V, Fung E, Yang JH, Downes K, Cooper JD, et al. Cell-specific protein phenotypes for the autoimmune locus IL2RA using a genotype-selectable human bioresource. Nat Genet. 2009;41(9):1011–5. doi: 10.1038/ng.434.
    1. Ahmed ST, Akirav E, Bradshaw E, Buckner J, McKinney E, Quintana FJ, et al. Immunological biomarkers: catalysts for translational advances in autoimmune diabetes. Clin Exp Immunol. 2013;172(2):178–85. doi: 10.1111/cei.12063.
    1. MacAllister R, Veighey K. Governing mechanistic studies to understand human biology. Res Ethics. 2012;8(4):212–5. doi: 10.1177/1747016112464840.
    1. Hartemann A, Bensimon G, Payan CA, Jacqueminet S, Bourron O, Nicolas N, et al. Low-dose interleukin 2 in patients with type 1 diabetes: a phase 1/2 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013;1(4):295–305. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70113-X.
    1. Ito S, Bollard CM, Carlsten M, Melenhorst JJ, Biancotto A, Wang E, et al. Ultra-low dose interleukin-2 promotes immune-modulating function of regulatory T cells and natural killer cells in healthy volunteers. Mol Ther. 2014;22(7):1388–95. doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.50.
    1. Waldron-Lynch F. Adaptive study of IL-2 dose frequency on regulatory T cells in type 1 diabetes (DILfrequency) NCT02265809 . 2014. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. NIHR Clinical Research Network. Participant Identification Centres PICS. 2013. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. ADDRESS2: Supporting Type 1 Diabetes Research. Diabetes Research Network and Medicines for Children Research Network, United Kingdom. 2011. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database: Diabetes - Genes, Autoimmunity and Prevention (D-GAP). 2011. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Can interleukin-2 stop further damage to the pancreas in type 1 diabetes? (DILT1D study). 2013. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Diabetes UK. Rebalancing the Immune System in Type 1 Diabetes. 2013. . Accessed 5 September 2014.
    1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Successful JDRF-funded clinical trial continues to recruit participants. Jan 2014. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. University of Cambridge. Genetic studies lead to clinical trial of new treatment for type 1 diabetes. 2013. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: technical report. 2011. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. Open Access to Local Data: Societal Wellbeing. 2014. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. GoogleAnalytics. Google, California. 2005. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Bailey NT. Statistical Methods in Biology. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
    1. Gale EAM, Gillespie KM. Diabetes and gender. Diabetologia. 2001;44(1):3–15. doi: 10.1007/s001250051573.
    1. Kadhim Shubber: Type 1 diabetes treatment could reduce need for insulin injections. . 2013. . Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
    1. Treweek S, Wilkie E, Craigie AM, Caswell S, Thompson J, Steele RJ, et al. Meeting the challenges of recruitment to multicentre, community-based, lifestyle-change trials: a case study of the BeWEL trial. Trials. 2013;14:436. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-436.
    1. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):191–200. doi: 10.1038/nrd3681.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner