From the UCSF Weill Institute for Neuroscience, Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2022 Dec 30;10(2). doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200070. Print 2023 Mar.
Prospective, deeply phenotyped research cohorts monitoring individuals with chronic neurologic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), depend on continued participant engagement. The COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-clinic research activities, threatening this longitudinal engagement, but also forced adoption of televideo-enabled care. This offered a natural experiment in which to analyze key dimensions of remote research: (1) comparison of remote vs in-clinic visit costs from multiple perspectives and (2) comparison of the remote with in-clinic measures in cross-sectional and longitudinal disability evaluations.
Between March 2020 and December 2021, 207 MS cohort participants underwent hybrid in-clinic and virtual research visits; 96 contributed 100 "matched visits," that is, in-clinic (Neurostatus-Expanded Disability Status Scale [NS-EDSS]) and remote (televideo-enabled EDSS [tele-EDSS]; electronic patient-reported EDSS [ePR-EDSS]) evaluations. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of participants were collected.
The costs of remote visits were lower than in-clinic visits for research investigators (facilities, personnel, parking, participant compensation) but also for participants (travel, caregiver time) and carbon footprint ( < 0.05 for each). Median cohort EDSS was similar between the 3 modalities (NS-EDSS: 2, tele-EDSS: 1.5, ePR-EDSS: 2, range 0.6.5); the remote evaluations were each noninferior to the NS-EDSS within ±0.5 EDSS point (TOST for noninferiority, < 0.01 for each). Furthermore, year to year, the % of participants with worsening/stable/improved EDSS scores was similar, whether each annual evaluation used NS-EDSS or whether it switched from NS-EDSS to tele-EDSS.
Altogether, the current findings suggest that remote evaluations can reduce the costs of research participation for patients, while providing a reasonable evaluation of disability trajectory longitudinally. This could inform the design of remote research that is more inclusive of diverse participants.
前瞻性、深入表型研究队列监测患有慢性神经系统疾病(如多发性硬化症[MS])的个体,需要参与者持续参与。COVID-19 大流行限制了门诊研究活动,威胁到这种纵向参与,但也迫使采用远程视频支持的护理。这提供了一个自然实验,可以分析远程研究的关键维度:(1)从多个角度比较远程与门诊就诊的成本;(2)在横断面和纵向残疾评估中比较远程与门诊评估。
2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 12 月,207 名 MS 队列参与者接受了混合门诊和虚拟研究访问;96 名参与者贡献了 100 次“匹配访问”,即门诊(扩展残疾状况量表[NS-EDSS])和远程(远程视频支持的 EDSS[远程-EDSS];电子患者报告的 EDSS[ePR-EDSS])评估。收集参与者的临床、人口统计学和社会经济特征。
与门诊就诊相比,远程就诊的研究人员(设施、人员、停车、参与者补偿)和参与者(旅行、护理人员时间)以及碳足迹(每项费用均低于 0.05)成本更低。队列的 EDSS 中位数在 3 种模式之间相似(NS-EDSS:2,远程-EDSS:1.5,ePR-EDSS:2,范围 0.6-5);远程评估均在±0.5 EDSS 点内非劣于 NS-EDSS(TOST 用于非劣效性,每项均小于 0.01)。此外,无论每年的评估是使用 NS-EDSS 还是从 NS-EDSS 切换到远程-EDSS,每年参与者 EDSS 评分恶化/稳定/改善的比例相似。
总的来说,目前的研究结果表明,远程评估可以降低患者参与研究的成本,同时提供对残疾轨迹的合理纵向评估。这可以为更具包容性的远程研究设计提供信息。