Lessons learned conducting a multi-center trial with a military population: The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial

Abstract

Background The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT), a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, evaluated the efficacy of tinnitus retraining therapy and its individual components, tinnitus-specific educational counseling and sound therapy versus the standard of care, in military practice to improve study participants' quality of life. The trial was conducted at six US military hospitals to take advantage of the greater prevalence of tinnitus in the military population. Methods During the trial, various challenges arose that were uniquely related to the military setting. To convey these challenges to investigators planning future multi-center trials in military hospitals, we itemized various challenges that arose during the trial, interviewed clinic directors and coordinators to elicit their viewpoints, and then collated and organized their responses, together with those challenges presented while conducting the Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial. Results We encountered challenges in site selection, the approval process, administrative issues, study personnel training and retention, participant recruitment methods and issues, adherence to protocol, reimbursement issues, and military security. Site selection involved visiting 20 military hospitals to identify six sites that enrolled and followed study participants. We found that commitment for the trial must be obtained from the full military chain of command, but with ongoing changes in staff or military priorities, initial commitments were insufficient to sustain support throughout the entire trial. More time is required to obtain necessary administrative approvals by various military authorities and institutional review boards than is typically experienced in civilian settings. Recruitment strategies must be flexible due to changing military regulations regarding display of materials. Protracted periods of inactivity were due to sequestration and delays in institutional review board approval of required study personnel or protocol amendments. While mostly adherent to the protocol, study staff had difficulties in integrating study visits into the military clinical schedule. Unexpected study expenses revolved around hiring civilian study staff and obtaining associated security clearance while maintaining a consistent flow of funds to each site. The added expense negated cost savings realized by conducting the National Institutes of Health-funded trial at federal institutions, whose personnel could not be reimbursed for their efforts. Military security concerns impacted the use of web-based data systems and led to increased time and effort required for site visits. Conclusion Overall, US military hospitals provide a unique setting to conduct multi-center trials. Challenges arise mainly due to ever-changing authority personnel and military priorities. Pre-planning and flexibility are keys in overcoming these challenges. Multi-center trials conducted in the military will likely take longer to initiate and complete than those in the civilian sector due ...

Exploring the role of R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies in government technology transfer performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies (1999–2016)

“…Still, the DOD Defense Laboratories Office collates and delivers a single annual report of what statutorily should be four distinct agency accounts while each military department can point to the statute to substantiate their differences. The differences naturally contribute to frustrating delays in industry-DOD collaborations involving more than one DOD ‘agency’ [ 112 , 113 ]. Amending the statute to remove the underlined part above would enable harmonized policies and practices broadly throughout the DOD.…”

Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics

“…Naturally, different types of transactions would be expected to have different transaction times; while simple agreements (e.g., material transfer agreements) could be done within a few days, substantive CRADAs could be expected to take up to 60 days, and license agreements up to 120 calendar days. Transactions that are too lengthy are among the most common criticisms from both external and internal stakeholders, and encourage the non-memorialization of activities, leading to the government's loss of rights to key datasets and potential inventions (Hernandez et al 2017;Scherer et al 2018). Unfortunately, although executive guidance explicitly directed improving the 'pace' and 'streamlining' of transactions, agencies do not generally report transactional efficiency times.…”

An Analysis of Factors Affecting Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Transactional Efficiency

“…The lengthy bureaucratic processes associated with establishing a CRADA is a recognized challenge, routinely taking longer than anticipated (Hernandez et al 2017;Scherer et al 2018). As US federal government agencies do not widely report process metrics, and in light of the push to broadly improve federal technology transfer, the absence of fundamental baseline measures from which to gauge reforms is notable (Bozeman 2013).…”