Enhancing diverse representation in clinical studies: Recommendations from external subject matter experts (SMEs) and patients to optimize protocols, informed consent and study designs.
Authors: Vidal Gregory A. , Cheng Haiying , Curry Andrea , Danciu Oana Cristina , Halmos Balazs , Hopton-Jones Jennifer , Huddleston Stephen , Kapoor Kapil , Khalil Maya , Nguyen Ryan Huu-Tuan , Porter Jason , Reaves Brieyona , Russell Meredith , Gupta Suyasha , Henderson Lauren , Mckenzie Meghan , Ndunda Diana , Rosenberg Noah , Bhagat Ruma 
Published: June 2024

e23004

Background: Well-characterized disparities in clinical research have disproportionately affected patients of color, particularly in underserved communities. To tackle these barriers, the Roche-Genentech U.S. Advancing Inclusive Research Site Alliance solicited feedback from external SMEs about recommendations for strategies and tactics to increase Black, Hispanic/Latinx and older adult patient clinical research participation. Methods: Feedback was received virtually and via 1:1 interviews from 13 external SMEs defined as investigators, study coordinators or other clinical research roles that engage directly with patients regarding a Phase III small-cell lung cancer protocol as a use case. Two patients provided recommendations for future clinical study protocols and designs. Additionally, multiple healthcare providers from International Society of Geriatric Oncology provided recommendations for the inclusion of older adults in study protocols. A cross-functional, pan-Roche-Genentech team reviewed the feedback and finalized all materials. Results: Six key themes emerged: (a) use lay terms and humanizing language in patient materials; (b) integrate patient lifestyle realities by allowing flexibility in protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; (c) improve the ease of patient participation and seek only what is clinically necessary for study assessment; (d) incorporate options for sites to enable them to make the right, and fastest, decision(s) for patients without sacrificing safety or data quality; (e) show commitment to diversity in words and actions such as including target enrollment goals in protocols and incorporating patient input on protocols before protocol finalization; (f) include older patients > 70 years. Patient feedback reinforced the SME themes, except for inclusion of older patients. Patients suggested efficiency, clarity and local community realities be factored into future study designs. Some examples are fewer clinic visits, remote visit options, providing patient transportation and food support in connection with protocol-required visits. Patients also highlighted the importance of explaining the probability of side-effects, clinics being present in the community and the need for greater education and awareness regarding barriers to clinical trial enrollment. One patient relayed the importance of early trial education through general physician offices before a trial is actually needed for a given patient. Conclusions: These SME recommendations provide actionable insights to inform protocol design and patient recruitment strategy and tactics to enhance future protocols from an inclusivity-specific lens. Study teams can use these recommendations to address barriers that make enrollment/retention by underrepresented patient populations difficult.