Article

Use of a precious resource: Parental decision making about using autologous umbilical cord blood in studies involving young children with type 1 diabetes

Department of Medical Humanities and Social Sciences, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL 32306–4300, USA.
Contemporary clinical trials (Impact Factor: 1.99). 07/2011; 32(4):524-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.04.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess parental decision making and experiences in an autologous umbilical cord blood infusion study in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Surveys were completed with 22 parents of children with T1D who received infusion and 22 parents who declined infusion.
Parents who stored umbilical cord blood were middle-aged, highly-educated, Caucasian, married, and privately insured. Parents of children who did not receive infusion declined because they did not want to deplete their cord blood supply. Parents of children who decided to have their children participate in the infusion study were similar on approaches to storing cord blood and attitudes about research as compared to parents who declined to have their children participate in the infusion. Parents of children who received infusion were positive about their experiences and held expectations that infusion would lead to a T1D cure.
The manner in which cord blood is stored needs to be considered so that participation in future studies does not risk depletion of the cord blood supply. In addition, it appears that the process of storing umbilical cord blood leads to restricted demographic characteristics of eligible participants, which may impact recruitment in clinical trials. These results are relevant to designing future cord blood studies in T1D and other non-malignant diseases.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Suzanne Bennett Johnson, Apr 24, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Recruitment to randomized controlled trials is known to be challenging. It is important to understand and identify predictors of good or poor accrual to a clinical trial so that appropriate strategies can be put in place to overcome these problems and facilitate successful trial completion. We have developed a survey tool to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams regarding facilitators and barriers to recruitment in a clinical trial and describe herein the method of developing the questionnaire. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify studies that have explored facilitators and barriers to recruitment, and a list of potential factors affecting recruitment to a clinical trial was generated. These factors were categorized in terms relating to the (i) trial, (ii) site, (iii) patient, (iv) clinical team, (v) information and consent and (vi) study team. A list was provided for responders to grade these factors as weak, intermediate or strong facilitators or barriers to recruitment. Results A web-based survey questionnaire was developed. This survey was designed to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams with regard to the perceived facilitators and barriers to recruitment, to identify strategies applied to overcome these problems, and to obtain suggestions for change in the organization of future trials. The survey tool can be used to assess the recruitment experience of clinical teams in a single/multicenter trial in any clinical setting or speciality involving adults or children either in an ongoing trial or at trial completion. The questionnaire is short, easy to administer and to complete, with an estimated completion time of 11 minutes. Conclusions We have presented a robust methodology for developing this survey tool that provides an evidence-based list of potential factors that can affect recruitment to a clinical trial. We recommend that all clinical trialists should consider using this tool with appropriate trial-specific adaptations to monitor and improve recruitment performance in an ongoing trial or conduct the survey at trial completion to gather information on facilitators and barriers to recruitment that can form the basis of interventions and strategies to improve recruitment to future clinical trials.
    Trials 11/2012; 13(1):218. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-13-218 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to determine if autologous umbilical cord blood (UCB) infusion followed by 1 year of supplementation with vitamin D (Vit D) and docosoahexaenoic acid (DHA) can preserve C-peptide in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted an open label, 2:1 randomized study in which 15 T1D subjects with stimulated C-peptide > 0.2 pmol/mL received either (1) autologous UCB infusion, one year of daily oral Vit D (2,000IU) and DHA (38mg/kg), and intensive diabetes management, or (2) intensive diabetes management alone. Primary analyses were performed 1 year following UCB infusion. Treated (n=10) and control (n=5) subjects had median ages of 7.2 and 6.6 years, respectively. No severe adverse events were observed. While the absolute rate of C-peptide decline was slower in treated versus control subjects, intergroup comparisons failed to reach significance (P=0.29). AUC C-peptide declined and insulin use increased in both groups (P=<0.01). VitD levels remained stable in treated subjects but declined in controls (P=0.01). DHA levels rose in treated subjects versus controls (P =0.003). CD4:CD8 ratio remained stable in treated subjects but declined in controls (P=0.03). No changes were seen in regulatory T cell frequency, total CD4 counts, or autoantibody titers. Autologous UCB infusion followed by daily supplementation with Vit D and DHA was safe but failed to preserve C-peptide. Lack of significance may reflect small sample size. Future efforts will require expansion of specific immunoregulatory cell subsets, optimization of combined immunoregulatory and anti-inflammatory agents, and larger study cohorts.
    Biology of blood and marrow transplantation: journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 04/2013; 19(7). DOI:10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.04.011 · 3.35 Impact Factor