Boosting enrollment in neurology trials with Local Identification and Outreach Networks (LIONs)

Departments of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06519, USA.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.29). 05/2009; 72(15):1345-51. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a0fda3
Source: PubMed


Our purpose was to develop a geographically localized, multi-institution strategy for improving enrolment in a trial of secondary stroke prevention.
We invited 11 Connecticut hospitals to participate in a project named the Local Identification and Outreach Network (LION). Each hospital provided the names of patients with stroke or TIA, identified from electronic admission or discharge logs, to researchers at a central coordinating center. After obtaining permission from personal physicians, researchers contacted each patient to describe the study, screen for eligibility, and set up a home visit for consent. Researchers traveled throughout the state to enroll and follow participants. Outside the LION, investigators identified trial participants using conventional recruitment strategies. We compared recruitment success for the LION and other sites using data from January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007.
The average monthly randomization rate from the LION was 4.0 participants, compared with 0.46 at 104 other Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) sites. The LION randomized on average 1.52/1,000 beds/month, compared with 0.76/1,000 beds/month at other IRIS sites (p = 0.03). The average cost to randomize and follow one participant was $8,697 for the LION, compared with $7,198 for other sites.
A geographically based network of institutions, served by a central coordinating center, randomized substantially more patients per month compared with sites outside of the network. The high enrollment rate was a result of surveillance at multiple institutions and greater productivity at each institution. Although the cost per patient was higher for the network, compared with nonnetwork sites, cost savings could result from more rapid completion of research.

Download full-text


Available from: Joseph Schindler, Apr 07, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical trials of stroke therapy have been hampered by slow rates of enrolment. Our purpose is to validate a previously developed model for accelerating enrolment in clinical trials by replicating it at new locations. The model employs coordinators who travel from a host institution to enrol participants from a network of participating hospitals. Active surveillance assures identification of all eligible patients. Among 70 U.S. investigators participating in National Institutes of Health-funded trial of stroke prevention, five investigators were invited to develop local identification and outreach networks (LIONs). Each LION comprised a LION coordinating centre servicing multiple hospitals. Hospitals provided names of patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack to researchers at the LION coordinating centre who initiated contact; patients were offered home visits for consent and randomization. Outcomes were feasibility, enrolment, data quality, and cost. Five LIONs varied in size from two to eight hospitals. All 24 hospitals we approached agreed to participate. The average monthly rate of enrolment at the research sites increased from 1.4 participants to 3.5 after expanding from a single institution model to the LION format (mean change = 2.1, range 0.9-3.7). Monthly performance improved over time. Data quality was similar for LIONs and non-LION sites, except for drug adherence which was lower at LIONs. The average cost to randomize and follow one participant during the study interval was 2.4 times the cost under the per-patient, cost-reimbursement strategy at non-LION sites. The cost ratio declined from 3.4 in year one to 1.8 in year two. The LION strategy requires unprecedented collaboration and trust among institutions. Applicability beyond stroke requires confirmation. LIONs are a practical, reproducible method to increase enrolment in trial research. Twelve months were required for the average site to reach its potential. The per-participant cost at LIONs was higher than conventional sites but declined over time.
    Clinical Trials 08/2011; 8(5):645-53. DOI:10.1177/1740774511414925 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this review we illustrate both the fundamentals and challenges of randomized clinical trials in neuromuscular disorders and suggest directions for prospective efforts to improve the design, conduct, rigor, and objectivity of these trials. Current research in clinical trials for neuromuscular disorders and key issues affecting these trials are reviewed. This perspective addresses the planning of clinical research, level of preclinical data needed to justify trials, patient recruitment and retention, and opportunities to access federal funding and infrastructure in support of clinical trials. The need for innovation in trial design and conduct, rigorous standards for the preclinical efficacy and safety data that support trial rationale, novel collaborative paradigms, objective interpretations of outcomes, and sharing of the lessons learned from trials in any one disorder among all neuromuscular trialists are imperative to improving the heretofore limited success in delivering novel, safe, and effective therapies to patients burdened by neuromuscular disorders.
    Muscle & Nerve 11/2011; 44(5):695-702. DOI:10.1002/mus.22130 · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Stroke 05/2013; 44(6, Supplement 1):S119-S121. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000694 · 5.72 Impact Factor
Show more