METHODS: Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta-narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high (n = 7), medium (n = 14) to low (n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow-up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism.
CONCLUSIONS: Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.
RECOMMENDATIONS: This is a narrative opinion piece on the design of clinical trials in youth-onset type 2 diabetes prepared by researchers who undertake this type of study in different countries. The review addresses possible ways to enhance trial designs in youth-onset type 2 diabetes to meet regulatory requirements, while minimizing the barriers to patients' participation. The definition of adolescence, recruitment of sufficient patient numbers, increasing flexibility in selection criteria, improving convenience of trial visits, requirements of a control group, possible endpoints, and trial compliance are all considered. The authors recommend allowing extrapolation from adult data, using multiple interventional arms within future trials, broadening inclusion criteria, and focusing on endpoints beyond glucose control, among others, in order to improve the successful completion of more trials in this population.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in trial design will enable better recruitment and retention and thereby more evidence for treatment outcomes for youth-onset type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study (7 centers, 6 countries) analyzed defined laboratory-based walking and uninstructed "supervised free walking" in patients with SPG7 and healthy controls using 3 wearable sensors (Opal APDM). For the extracted digital gait measures, we assessed effect sizes for the discrimination of patients and controls (Cliff δ) and Spearman correlations with measures of functional mobility and overall disease severity (Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale [SPRS], including mobility subscore SPRSmobility; Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia [SARA]) and the activities of daily living subscore of the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS-ADL).
RESULTS: Gait was analyzed in 65 patients with SPG7 and 50 healthy controls. Among 30 hypothesis-based gait measures, 18 demonstrated at least moderate effect size (δ > 0.5) in discriminating patients from controls and 17 even in mild disease stages (SPRSmobility ≤ 9, n = 41). Spatiotemporal variability measures such as spatial variability measure SPcmp (ρ = 0.67, p < 0.0001) and stride time CV (ρ = 0.67, p < 0.0001) showed the largest correlations with functional mobility (SPRSmobility)-as with overall disease severity (SPRS, SARA) and activities of daily living (FARS-ADL). The correlations of variability measures with SPRSmobility could be confirmed in mild disease stages (e.g., SPcmp: ρ = 0.50, p < 0.0001) and in "supervised free walking" (e.g., stride time CV: ρ = -0.57, p < 0.0001).
DISCUSSION: We here identified trial-ready digital-motor candidate outcomes for the spastic ataxia SPG7 with proven multicenter applicability, ability to discriminate patients from controls, and correlation with measures of patient-relevant health aspects-even in mild disease stages. If validated longitudinally, these sensor outcomes might inform future natural history and treatment trials in SPG7 and other spastic ataxias.