Participant recruitment and attrition in surgical randomised trials with placebo controls versus non-operative controls: a meta-epidemiological study and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019117364.

Early Enzymatic Burn Debridement: Results of the DETECT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Since 1970 surgeons have managed deep burns by surgical debridement and autografting. We tested the hypothesis that enzymatic debridement with NexoBrid would remove the eschar reducing surgery and achieve comparable long-term outcomes as standard of care (SOC). In this Phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with deep burns (covering 3-30% of total body surface area [TBSA]) to NexoBrid, surgical or nonsurgical SOC, or placebo Gel Vehicle (GV) in a 3:3:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was complete eschar removal (ER) at the end of the debridement phase. Secondary outcomes were need for surgery, time to complete ER, and blood loss. Safety endpoints included wound closure and 12 and 24-months cosmesis on the Modified Vancouver Scar Scale. Patients were randomized to NexoBrid (n = 75), SOC (n = 75), and GV (n = 25). Complete ER was higher in the NexoBrid versus the GV group (93% vs 4%; P < .001). Surgical excision was lower in the NexoBrid vs the SOC group (4% vs 72%; P < .001). Median time to ER was 1.0 and 3.8 days for the NexoBrid and SOC respectively (P < .001). ER blood loss was lower in the NexoBrid than the SOC group (14 ± 512 mL vs 814 ± 1020 mL, respectively; P < .0001). MVSS scores at 12 and 24 months were noninferior in the NexoBrid versus SOC groups (3.7 ± 2.1 vs 5.0 ± 3.1 for the 12 months and 3.04 ± 2.2 vs 3.30 ± 2.76 for the 24 months). NexoBrid resulted in early complete ER in >90% of burn patients, reduced surgery and blood loss. NexoBrid was safe and well tolerated without deleterious effects on wound closure and scarring.

Recruitment and retention for chronic pain clinical trials: a narrative review

Opioid misuse is at a crisis level. In response to this epidemic, the National Institutes of Health has funded $945 million in research through the Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Pain Management Initiative, including funding to the Vanderbilt Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC) to strategize methods to catalyze participant recruitment. The RIC, recognizing the challenges presented to clinical researchers in recruiting individuals experiencing pain, conducted a review of evidence in the literature on successful participant recruitment methods for chronic pain trials, in preparation for supporting the HEAL Pain trials. Study design as it affects recruitment was reviewed, with issues such as sufficient sample size, impact of placebo, pain symptom instability, and cohort characterization being identified as problems. Potential solutions found in the literature include targeted electronic health record phenotyping, use of alternative study designs, and greater clinician education and involvement. For retention, the literature reports successful strategies that include maintaining a supportive staff, allowing virtual study visits, and providing treatment flexibility within the trial. Community input on study design to identify potential obstacles to recruitment and retention was found to help investigators avoid pitfalls and enhance trust, especially when recruiting underrepresented minority populations. Our report concludes with a description of generalizable resources the RIC has developed or adapted to enhance recruitment and retention in the HEAL Pain studies. These resources include, among others, a Recruitment and Retention Plan Template, a Competing Trials Tool, and MyCap, a mobile research application that interfaces with Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).

Recruitment characteristics and non-adherence associated factors of fibromyalgia patients in a randomized clinical trial: A retrospective survival analysis

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia is a complex pain condition that affects mostly women. Given the disease's lack of understanding, patients report poor adherence to medication and mistrust of medical services. This study aims to describe the recruitment characteristics and non-adherence associated factors of fibromyalgia patients to an RCT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal analysis with data from our ongoing RCT. We investigated characteristics of subjects recruited, consented, and randomized. Adherence was studied using survival analysis techniques, and its associated factors were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

524 subjects were contacted, 269 were eligible, 61 consented and 40 subjects were randomized. Thirty-eight percent were non-adherent to the protocol with a median of visits of five. The recruitment survey reported that 90% would likely participate in RCTs, 52% had previous participation, and 19% were aware of RCTs by their physicians. Some barriers were investigator-related (staff's friendliness and receiving the results of their trial participation) and center-related (privacy-confidentiality issues and the institution's reputation), without difference between adherent and non-adherent participants. We report significant factors for non-adherence as VAS anxiety score of 5 or more (5.3 HR, p = 0.01), Body Mass Index (BMI) (0.91 HR, p = 0.041) and Quality of Life (QoL) - Personal development subdomain (0.89 HR, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Recruitment and adherence of fibromyalgia patients is a challenge; however, they seem eager to participate in RCTs. We recommend creating a comfortable, friendly and trusting environment to increase the recruitment rate. Higher anxiety, lower BMI and lower quality of life were associated with a higher attrition rate.

A review of burn symptoms and potential novel neural targets for non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment of burn sequelae

Burn survivors experience myriad associated symptoms such as pain, pruritus, fatigue, impaired motor strength, post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. Many of these symptoms are common and remain chronic, despite current standard of care. One potential novel intervention to target these post burn symptoms is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). tDCS is a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique that modulates neural excitability of a specific target or neural network. The aim of this work is to review the neural circuits of the aforementioned clinical sequelae associated with burn injuries and to provide a scientific rationale for specific NIBS targets that can potentially treat these conditions. We ran a systematic review, following the PRISMA statement, of tDCS effects on burn symptoms. Only three studies matched our criteria. One was a feasibility study assessing cortical plasticity in chronic neuropathic pain following burn injury, one looked at the effects of tDCS to reduce pain anxiety during burn wound care, and one assessed the effects of tDCS to manage pain and pruritus in burn survivors. Current literature on NIBS in burn remains limited, only a few trials have been conducted. Based on our review and results in other populations suffering from similar symptoms as patients with burn injuries, three main areas were selected: the prefrontal region, the parietal area and the motor cortex. Based on the importance of the prefrontal cortex in the emotional component of pain and its implication in various psychosocial symptoms, targeting this region may represent the most promising target. Our review of the neural circuitry involved in post burn symptoms and suggested targeted areas for stimulation provide a spring board for future study initiatives.

Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied for the treatment of chronic pain. It is considered a promising and safe alternative pain therapy. Different targets have been tested, each having their own particular mechanisms for modulating pain perception.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the current state of the art of tDCS to manage pain and future strategies to optimize tDCS' effects. Current strategies include primary motor cortex tDCS, prefrontal tDCS and tDCS combined with behavioral interventions while future strategies, on the other hand, include high-intensity tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, cerebellar tDCS, home-based tDCS, and tDCS with extended number of sessions.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

It has been shown that the stimulation of the prefrontal and primary motor cortex is efficient for pain reduction while a few other new strategies, such as high-intensity tDCS and network-based tDCS, are believed to induce strong neuroplastic effects, although the underlying neural mechanisms still need to be fully uncovered. Hence, conventional tDCS approaches demonstrated promising effects to manage pain and new strategies are under development to enhance tDCS effects and make this approach more easily available by using, for instance, home-based devices.

Factors Associated with Attrition of Adult Participants in a Longitudinal Database: A National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System Study

Participant attrition in longitudinal studies can lead to substantial bias in study results, especially when attrition is nonrandom. A previous study of the Burn Model System (BMS) database prior to 2002 identified participant and study-related factors related to attrition. The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in attrition rates in the BMS longitudinal database since 2002 and to revisit factors associated with attrition. Individuals 18 years and older enrolled in the BMS database between 2002 and 2018 were included in this study. Stepwise logistic regression models identified factors significantly associated with attrition at 6, 12, and 24 months postburn injury. The percentage of individuals lost to follow-up was 26% at 6 months, 33% at 12 months, and 42% at 24 months. Factors associated with increased risk of loss to follow-up across two or more time points include male sex, lower TBSA burn size, being unemployed at the time of burn, shorter duration of acute hospital stay, younger age, not having private health insurance or workers' compensation, and a history of drug abuse. Retention levels in the BMS have improved by at least 10% at all time points since 2002. The BMS and other longitudinal burn research projects can use these results to identify individuals at high risk for attrition who may require additional retention efforts. Results also indicate potential sources of bias in research projects utilizing the BMS database.