Skip to content

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Kidney Practice (ePRO Kidney)

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Kidney Practice (ePRO Kidney)

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03149328
Enrollment
594
Registered
2017-05-11
Start date
2017-08-28
Completion date
2019-10-31
Last updated
2021-10-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Kidney Disease, End-Stage

Keywords

Home Dialysis, Person-Centred Care, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, Process Evaluation, Educational Support, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, Patient-Reported Experience Measures

Brief summary

People living with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) need dialysis or transplantation in order to stay alive. This illness and treatment significantly impact peoples' health, emotions, work and relationships. To promote person-centred care, healthcare professionals should be asking patients about what matters to them and using this feedback to plan and deliver care. Patient-reported outcome and experience questionnaires (jointly referred to as PROs) allow patients to provide information about their quality of life, symptoms and experiences with care. PROs are increasingly used to help healthcare professionals learn about what is important to patients and the impacts of illness or treatments from patients' point of view. Embedding feedback from patients into routine clinical practice is important in end-stage kidney disease because of the physical and quality of life challenges these patients face when living with kidney failure. PROs provide vital and often missing information that the healthcare team can use to support patients. However, PROs administered via paper questionnaires have been perceived as cumbersome, difficult to integrate with other health information and do not provide immediate feedback. In this research, home dialysis patients will have the opportunity to complete electronically administered PROs (ePROs) and healthcare professionals will receive education about how to use PRO information. The goal is to learn how to support healthcare professionals to routinely use this information to inform patient care, and see if this makes a difference in patients' symptoms, person-centred care, quality of life and satisfaction with care. Learning what matters most to patients is essential for healthcare professionals to provide person-centred care. This research will address the gap in our understanding of how to best use patients' reports in healthcare. Findings of this research may ultimately improve the quality of healthcare for Canadians living with end-stage kidney disease.

Detailed description

Objectives: 1. Understand the process of supporting clinicians to utilize PROs in multidisciplinary, home dialysis practice. 2. Examine to what extent utilization of PRO information is associated with differences in symptoms and person-centred care \[primary outcomes\], as well as satisfaction with care, utilization of health services, mental health, and QOL \[secondary outcomes\]. Approach: To achieve these goals, a mixed methods design of process evaluation will be used to compare two groups: Northern and Southern Alberta Renal Programs, NARP (Edmonton) and SARP (Calgary). In Edmonton (Intervention group), patients and clinicians will be invited to participate in the study. Only patients will be invited to take part in the study in Calgary (Comparison group). The research study will be undertaken collaboratively with a Patient Advisory Committee and knowledge users. Setting: This research will be conducted among patients receiving home dialysis across Alberta Kidney Care, from its two units: Aberhart Clinic in the Northern Alberta Renal Program (NARP), and Sheldon M. Chumir Health Centre in the Southern Alberta Renal Program (SARP). NARP and SARP have 305 and 350 home dialysis patients respectively. Methods: The study is divided into two phases: Phase 1-Year 1 (Usability Testing) and Phase 2-Year 2 (Evaluation). SARP and NARP participants will be invited to complete ePROs for each of their scheduled appointments, every three months, throughout Phases 1 and 2. Phase 1: In NARP, the intervention group, interested patients will be approached and consent will be obtained. Before the clinic visit, the patient will complete a demographic survey, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale revised for renal patients (ESASr:Renal) using Cambian Navigator, a web-based ePRO system hosted by Cambian Business Services Inc. Survey results will be printed and given to the nurse, transcribed and placed in the patient' chart as well as on their electronic chart. NARP patients will also complete the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36), the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC-20), and the EQ-5D-5L after their clinic appointment. These 3 outcome evaluation measures will not be included in patient charts, or be used by clinicians at point of care. Usability testing and formative evaluation with NARP patients will also include up to 5 focus groups and 10 interviews to discuss how they would like their PRO information to be used by clinicians. Usability testing and formative evaluation with NARP multidisciplinary clinicians will include a series of focus groups (3-4) to discuss the ideal process for ePROs surveys to be integrated in existing work structures. Findings from these focus groups will be used to refine the targeted workshops provided as an intervention in Phase 2. In SARP, the comparator group, all patients meeting inclusion criteria will be invited to complete the consent form, demographic survey, and the ePRO survey tools collected in NARP, but not to participate in focus groups and interviews. The ePRO surveys will not be seen by the clinicians, but they will be informed of the study. Phase 2: Using a prospective design, the workshops (intervention) will occur in NARP. Clinicians will receive ePRO feedback as well as targeted education about how to use PRO information. Workshops will be offered every 1.5 months over the 6-month intervention period. Evaluation survey feedback will be sought at the end of each workshop to tailor information to clinicians' needs. In NARP, patients will continue to complete the PRO surveys before and after their clinic appointments. If other PRO measures are requested by clinicians in Phase 1, these will be added to Phase 2 data collection. Additionally, clinicians will be invited to complete an anonymous ticky-box form every 2 weeks, indicating if they reviewed the PRO information, and changed their decision-making based on the PRO information. All NARP clinicians will also be invited to participate in 1 interview (n=20). They will be asked to share examples of how they have used PRO information in their practice, and the challenges, benefits and facilitators of integrating ePROs in practice. Patient participants will also be invited to take part in a focus group (n=6) or interview (n=6) to discuss how they see clinicians following up on their PRO information. In SARP, clinicians will provide usual care. Clinicians will not receive PRO information or participate in workshops. Education will be provide to SARP clinicians following completion of the study, as a form of knowledge translation. Quantitative Evaluation: Descriptive methods and statistical tests will be used to examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare AUC scores of outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. Qualitative Evaluation: Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews will be recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the methodology of interpretive description. NVIVO, a qualitative software system, will be used to create a filing system and coding database. The first focus group/interview transcript in each phase will be read and re-read to generate an initial codebook. The codebooks will be iteratively refined throughout the analysis. Codes will be categorized and analyzed thematically. Patient and clinician data will be analyzed separately. Differences between pre- and post-implementation in NARP will also be examined.

Interventions

In the intervention group, clinicians will be provided with PRO feedback for use in their clinical practice. They will also receive educational support on how to use PRO data at point of care.

Sponsors

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
Cambian Business Services, Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Intogrey Research and Development Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Alberta Health services
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Alberta
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Process evaluation with two phases (Phase 1: Usability Testing; Phase 2: Evaluation)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Patient inclusion: * home dialysis patients attending regularly scheduled appointments in Edmonton at the Aberhart Clinic (NARP) or in Calgary at the Sheldon M. Chumir Health Centre (SARP) * ≥18 years old * able to read and speak English * can provide written informed consent * if a patient changes dialysis modality, they can continue to participate Clinician inclusion: * all clinical staff working with home dialysis patients at the Aberhart clinic in Edmonton (NARP) * study co-investigators/collaborators who are NARP clinicians may choose to participate Patient

Exclusion criteria

* visual impairment * cannot read or speak English

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Symptoms - Trajectory of ChangeTrajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completionAssessed using the symptoms/problems domain of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-Item Short Form Survey (KDQOL-36). The Symptoms/Problems domain has 12 items, each representing a symptom or side effect of kidney disease based on the past 4 weeks with 5 response items ranging from Not Bothered at all = 100 to Extremely Bothered = 0. Min Score = 0; Max score = 100. Higher score indicates better health.
Person-centred Care - Trajectory of ChangeTrajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completionAssessed using the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC-20), a patient-reported experience measure on satisfaction with care over the past 6 months. The PACIC-20 is a 20-item survey based on five subscales: (1) patient activation, (2) delivery system design and decision support, (3) goal setting and tailoring, (4) problem-solving and contextual counselling, and (5) follow-up and coordination. Each item is rated on a five-point scale (from Almost never = 0 to Almost always = 5) and the subscale and total scores are based on average scores across items. Min score = 0; Max score = 5. Higher scores indicates higher quality of care.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Utilization of Health ServicesFrom study enrollment until completion (up to 24 months)Assessed using health services data (i.e. average number of hospital admissions, trips to the emergency room) determined through SPOR Platform and Alberta Health Services electronic health records. Higher numbers indicates worse outcomes.
Number of Participants Who Selected 1 - Excellent on Satisfaction With CareUp to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completionAssessed using one item added to the end of the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions 20 item questionnaire (PACIC-20) related to care received. This item is from the NHS Outpatient Survey (2011). (RateClin) related to care received on a Likert-type scale from Excellent = 1 to Very Poor = 6. Min = 1, max = 6. The number of patients who selected 1 - Excellent was tabulated and compared between the two groups. The higher the number the more patients who felt the care provided to them was excellent.
Mental Health - Trajectory of ChangeTrajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completionAssessed using the SF-12 mental component summary (MCS) subscale in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item Short-Form Survey (KDQOL-36). The SF-12 uses 2 items (psychological distress and psychological well being) to measure the MCS score. The summary score is transformed using Canadian norm-based scoring. The scores ranged from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). The higher the score the better the mental health.
Quality of Life - Trajectory of ChangeTrajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completionAssessed using the Euro Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L. This assessment uses a descriptive system for health-related Quality of Life states in adults consisting of 5 dimensions; Mobility, Self-Care, Usual Activities, Pain/Discomfort, and Anxiety/Depression. Each dimension is scored between 1 = indicating no problem and 5 = indicating unable to/extreme problems. An EQ-5D summary index is derived by applying a formula (the Canadian standard value set) that attaches values (weights) to each of the levels in each dimension. Index min= 0.0 max = 1.0. The higher the index the better the quality of life/state of health.

Countries

Canada

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Patients who attended a home dialysis clinic in either the Aberhart Center in Edmonton (NARP), between August 28, 2017 & August 30, 2019 or the Sheldon M Chumir Health Center in Calgary (SARP), between October 5, 2017 & October 31, 2019 and who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in this study. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age, could not read or speak English or could not provide informed consent.

Pre-assignment details

Patients were recruited and placed into their arm based on the clinic they were attending - there was no random assignment. 51 participants were clinicians (48) and family caregivers (3), these 2 participants groups were not part of the trial portion of the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis Clinic
In this study arm home dialysis clinic patient participants completed Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePRO) every three months, the ePRO results for the ESASr were given to the nurse and placed in the patient chart (paper and electronic). This process helps to facilitate real time Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) data collection and feedback in clinical practice. Educational Training and Support was provided to the multidisciplinary home dialysis clinicians on how to use the results of the patient completed ePROs routinely in their practice to support ongoing patient care. Kidney Patient Population: Northern Alberta Renal Program (NARP)
284
Usual Care
In this study arm home dialysis clinic patient participants completed Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROs) every 3 months for study comparison data but this information was not shared with the home dialysis clinic clinicians and the clinciains did not have access to participant's assessment responses. Kidney Patient Population: Southern Alberta Renal Program (SARP)
259
Total543

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyChanged Dialysis Modality181
Overall StudyLanguage Barrier10
Overall StudyLeft Study Site12
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up2516
Overall StudyTransplant91
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject3026

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalUsual CareClinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis Clinic
Age, Continuous56.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.8
56.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.2
55.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3
Diagnoses
Arthritis
87 Participants49 Participants38 Participants
Diagnoses
Cancer
35 Participants13 Participants22 Participants
Diagnoses
Depression
67 Participants31 Participants36 Participants
Diagnoses
Diabetes
199 Participants83 Participants116 Participants
Diagnoses
Heart Disease
65 Participants26 Participants39 Participants
Diagnoses
Hypertension
368 Participants186 Participants182 Participants
Diagnoses
Leg Amputation
17 Participants7 Participants10 Participants
Diagnoses
Liver Disease
8 Participants6 Participants2 Participants
Diagnoses
Lower Back Pain
83 Participants40 Participants43 Participants
Diagnoses
Lung Disease
23 Participants15 Participants8 Participants
Diagnoses
Myocardial Infarction
53 Participants26 Participants27 Participants
Diagnoses
Other
61 Participants33 Participants28 Participants
Diagnoses
Stroke
26 Participants10 Participants16 Participants
Employment Status
Other
61 Participants26 Participants35 Participants
Employment Status
Retired
172 Participants95 Participants77 Participants
Employment Status
Unable to Work
143 Participants61 Participants82 Participants
Employment Status
Working
165 Participants76 Participants89 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
College / Trade Diploma
214 Participants113 Participants101 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
Elementary School
23 Participants5 Participants18 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
Graduate Degree
43 Participants18 Participants25 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
High School Graduate
162 Participants67 Participants95 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
Other
9 Participants4 Participants5 Participants
Highlest Level of Education
Undergraduate Degree
90 Participants50 Participants40 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Aboriginal
32 Participants9 Participants23 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Asian
104 Participants62 Participants42 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Black
14 Participants10 Participants4 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
More than one race/ethnicity
17 Participants12 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Other
20 Participants6 Participants14 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Unknown or not reported
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
White
355 Participants159 Participants196 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
185 Participants88 Participants97 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
356 Participants171 Participants185 Participants
Type of Dialysis
Home Hemodialysis
140 Participants65 Participants75 Participants
Type of Dialysis
Nocturnal
11 Participants5 Participants6 Participants
Type of Dialysis
Other
4 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Type of Dialysis
Peritoneal
386 Participants187 Participants199 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
23 / 28412 / 259
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 2840 / 259
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 2840 / 259

Outcome results

Primary

Person-centred Care - Trajectory of Change

Assessed using the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC-20), a patient-reported experience measure on satisfaction with care over the past 6 months. The PACIC-20 is a 20-item survey based on five subscales: (1) patient activation, (2) delivery system design and decision support, (3) goal setting and tailoring, (4) problem-solving and contextual counselling, and (5) follow-up and coordination. Each item is rated on a five-point scale (from Almost never = 0 to Almost always = 5) and the subscale and total scores are based on average scores across items. Min score = 0; Max score = 5. Higher scores indicates higher quality of care.

Time frame: Trajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completion

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Clinician Support and Education as well as Usual Care). Based on Imputed dataset.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicPerson-centred Care - Trajectory of Change3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Usual CarePerson-centred Care - Trajectory of Change3.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Comparison: We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis = both groups are the samep-value: 0.28ANCOVA
Primary

Symptoms - Trajectory of Change

Assessed using the symptoms/problems domain of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-Item Short Form Survey (KDQOL-36). The Symptoms/Problems domain has 12 items, each representing a symptom or side effect of kidney disease based on the past 4 weeks with 5 response items ranging from Not Bothered at all = 100 to Extremely Bothered = 0. Min Score = 0; Max score = 100. Higher score indicates better health.

Time frame: Trajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completion

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Clinician Support and Education as well as Usual Care). Based on Imputed dataset.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicSymptoms - Trajectory of Change77.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.2
Usual CareSymptoms - Trajectory of Change76.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.1
Comparison: We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis is that both groups are the same.p-value: 0.3ANCOVA
Secondary

Mental Health - Trajectory of Change

Assessed using the SF-12 mental component summary (MCS) subscale in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item Short-Form Survey (KDQOL-36). The SF-12 uses 2 items (psychological distress and psychological well being) to measure the MCS score. The summary score is transformed using Canadian norm-based scoring. The scores ranged from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). The higher the score the better the mental health.

Time frame: Trajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completion

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Clinician Support and Education as well as Usual Care). Based on Imputed dataset.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicMental Health - Trajectory of Change50.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.4
Usual CareMental Health - Trajectory of Change51.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.3
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groupsp-value: 0.79ANCOVA
Secondary

Number of Participants Who Selected 1 - Excellent on Satisfaction With Care

Assessed using one item added to the end of the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions 20 item questionnaire (PACIC-20) related to care received. This item is from the NHS Outpatient Survey (2011). (RateClin) related to care received on a Likert-type scale from Excellent = 1 to Very Poor = 6. Min = 1, max = 6. The number of patients who selected 1 - Excellent was tabulated and compared between the two groups. The higher the number the more patients who felt the care provided to them was excellent.

Time frame: Up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completion

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Clinician Support and Education as well as Usual Care). Based on Imputed dataset.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_UNITS)
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicNumber of Participants Who Selected 1 - Excellent on Satisfaction With Care654 Patient Reported Outcome Surveys
Usual CareNumber of Participants Who Selected 1 - Excellent on Satisfaction With Care547 Patient Reported Outcome Surveys
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groupsp-value: 0.18ANCOVA
Secondary

Quality of Life - Trajectory of Change

Assessed using the Euro Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L. This assessment uses a descriptive system for health-related Quality of Life states in adults consisting of 5 dimensions; Mobility, Self-Care, Usual Activities, Pain/Discomfort, and Anxiety/Depression. Each dimension is scored between 1 = indicating no problem and 5 = indicating unable to/extreme problems. An EQ-5D summary index is derived by applying a formula (the Canadian standard value set) that attaches values (weights) to each of the levels in each dimension. Index min= 0.0 max = 1.0. The higher the index the better the quality of life/state of health.

Time frame: Trajectories of up to 24 months from start of enrollment to study completion

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Clinician Support and Education as well as Usual Care). Based on Imputed dataset.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicQuality of Life - Trajectory of Change0.772 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.182
Usual CareQuality of Life - Trajectory of Change0.745 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.196
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groupsp-value: <0.001ANCOVA
Secondary

Utilization of Health Services

Assessed using health services data (i.e. average number of hospital admissions, trips to the emergency room) determined through SPOR Platform and Alberta Health Services electronic health records. Higher numbers indicates worse outcomes.

Time frame: From study enrollment until completion (up to 24 months)

Population: Health data for 5 participants classified as intervention were not found in the Alberta Health Services Database

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicUtilization of Health ServicesHospitalizations1.99 number of occurancesStandard Deviation 2.15
Clinician Support and Education Around Use of PROs in Home Dialysis ClinicUtilization of Health ServicesEmergency Room Visits5.72 number of occurancesStandard Deviation 7.28
Usual CareUtilization of Health ServicesHospitalizations2.33 number of occurancesStandard Deviation 2.52
Usual CareUtilization of Health ServicesEmergency Room Visits4.53 number of occurancesStandard Deviation 5.58
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of hospitalizationsp-value: 0.22ANCOVA
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of emergency room visitsp-value: 0.1ANCOVA

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 10, 2026