Khaligh-Razavi Seyed-Mahdi, Miller Tyler E, Passarella Ralph, Namvargolian Ahmad
Care Access Research LLC, Boston, MA, United States.
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Aug 19;12:1623776. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1623776. eCollection 2025.
Recruitment and retention remain critical challenges in clinical trials, particularly in neurodegenerative diseases, which require large participant populations, rigorous screening, and prolonged follow-up periods. Care Access is a global research site management organization that operates clinical trial sites employing various operational models. This study evaluates the operational performance of Care Access site models-including traditional sites, hub-and-spoke, and decentralized community-integrated research (DCIR) sites-within a Phase 3 neurodegenerative disease trial, focusing on their relative efficiency in recruitment, randomization, and retention. The inclusion of multiple site models within the same trial presents a rare opportunity for direct comparison under uniform study conditions, providing unique insights into their respective advantages and challenges. By analyzing key site performance metrics and the role of innovative operational strategies, this study aims to identify effective approaches to enhancing trial efficiency and overcoming recruitment challenges to inform the design and conduct of future trials.
The trial involved 32 Care Access sites each employing one of these distinct operational models. Key performance metrics, such as participant screening rates, randomization rates, screen failure rates, and post-randomization discontinuation rates, were analyzed across (a) traditional, (b) hub-and-spoke, and (c) DCIR site models. We also compared the enrollment performance of Care Access to that of 196 non-Care Access sites using publicly available data.
DCIR Sites demonstrated the highest recruitment efficiency, screening 20.61 participants per site per month and randomizing 0.79 participants per site per month, compared to 11.78 and 0.50 for traditional sites, and 12.20 and 0.45 for hub-and-spoke sites, respectively. Despite being newly established, and operating in a decentralized model, DCIR sites achieved post-randomization discontinuation rates (28.17%) comparable to those of traditional site models (26.28%), highlighting their effectiveness in maintaining participant engagement. All site models encountered high screen failure rates (~95%), consistent with Phase 3 trials for neurodegenerative diseases. Notably, a community-engaged, research-only facility achieved the lowest discontinuation rate (17.65%) among all sites, highlighting the potential of strong local engagement to significantly enhance retention and participation. Furthermore, when comparing Care Access sites with non-Care Access sites in this trial, Care Access sites achieved an average randomization rate of 15.6 participants per site, outperforming the 8.7 participants per site recorded by non-Care Access sites. Data quality, monitoring practices, and overall data integrity were consistent across all site models, supporting the reliability of findings across both decentralized and traditional approaches. This comparison highlights the effectiveness of the innovative operational framework and decentralized community engagement approach in overcoming traditional recruitment challenges and enhancing trial outcomes.
DCIR sites exhibited superior participant screening and randomization efficiency while maintaining discontinuation rates comparable to traditional site models. This success was driven by a combination of innovative operational strategies, including decentralized community-based outreach mechanisms that expanded population access to research by bringing trials directly to populations that previously lacked access to clinical research. At the same time, this approach helped reach underrepresented groups, thereby improving both geographic coverage and trial generalizability while enhancing overall trial performance. Additionally, other innovations like the deployment of centralized remote research coordinators also played a role by streamlining remotely-conducted tasks, allowing site staff, in all site models, to focus on participant care and engagement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of a flexible, multi-model site strategy in addressing recruitment and retention challenges in large-scale Phase 3 neurodegenerative disease trials and suggest that this approach may extend to other therapeutic areas facing similar challenges.
在临床试验中,尤其是在神经退行性疾病的临床试验中,招募和留住参与者仍然是严峻的挑战,因为这类试验需要大量的参与者群体、严格的筛选以及较长的随访期。Care Access是一家全球研究站点管理组织,运营着采用各种运营模式的临床试验站点。本研究评估了Care Access站点模式(包括传统站点、中心辐射型站点和去中心化社区整合研究(DCIR)站点)在一项3期神经退行性疾病试验中的运营表现,重点关注它们在招募、随机分组和留住参与者方面的相对效率。在同一试验中纳入多种站点模式,为在统一研究条件下进行直接比较提供了难得的机会,能让我们深入了解它们各自的优势和挑战。通过分析关键站点绩效指标以及创新运营策略的作用,本研究旨在确定提高试验效率和克服招募挑战的有效方法,为未来试验的设计和实施提供参考。
该试验涉及32个Care Access站点,每个站点采用一种不同的运营模式。对关键绩效指标进行了分析,这些指标包括参与者筛选率、随机分组率、筛选失败率和随机分组后退出率,分析对象涵盖(a)传统站点、(b)中心辐射型站点和(c)DCIR站点模式。我们还使用公开数据,将Care Access站点的入组表现与196个非Care Access站点的入组表现进行了比较。
DCIR站点展现出最高的招募效率,每个站点每月筛选20.61名参与者,每个站点每月随机分组0.79名参与者,相比之下,传统站点分别为11.78名和0.50名,中心辐射型站点分别为12.20名和0.45名。尽管DCIR站点是新设立的,且采用去中心化模式运营,但其随机分组后退出率(28.17%)与传统站点模式(26.28%)相当,这凸显了它们在维持参与者参与度方面的有效性。所有站点模式的筛选失败率都很高(约95%),这与神经退行性疾病的3期试验情况一致。值得注意的是,一个仅专注于研究且社区参与度高 的机构在所有站点中退出率最低(17.65%),这凸显了强大的本地参与度在显著提高留住率和参与度方面的潜力。此外,在本试验中将Care Access站点与非Care Access站点进行比较时,Care Access站点每个站点的平均随机分组率为15.6名参与者,优于非Care Access站点每个站点记录的8.7名参与者。所有站点模式的数据质量、监测实践和整体数据完整性都是一致的,这支持了分散式和传统方法所得出结果的可靠性。这种比较凸显了创新运营框架和去中心化社区参与方法在克服传统招募挑战和提高试验结果方面的有效性。
DCIR站点在保持与传统站点模式相当的退出率的同时,展现出卓越的参与者筛选和随机分组效率。这一成功得益于多种创新运营策略的结合,包括基于社区的去中心化推广机制,该机制通过将试验直接带给以前无法参与临床研究的人群,扩大了研究的人群覆盖范围。与此同时,这种方法有助于接触到代表性不足的群体,从而在提高地理覆盖范围和试验可推广性的同时,提升了整体试验表现。此外,其他创新举措,如部署集中式远程研究协调员,也通过简化远程执行的任务发挥了作用,使所有站点模式的站点工作人员能够专注于参与者护理和参与。这些发现凸显了灵活的多模式站点策略在应对大规模3期神经退行性疾病试验中的招募和留住参与者挑战方面的有效性,并表明这种方法可能适用于面临类似挑战的其他治疗领域。