Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: a trinational survey of researchers' experiences, beliefs, and practices

Coenrollment in a critical care trial: Characteristics and consequences

BACKGROUND

Objectives of this study were to determine the characteristics of patients, centers and studies involved in coenrollment, and the association of coenrollment with trial metrics and patient outcomes.

METHODS

This pre-planned study within a stress ulcer prophylaxis trial testing pantopazole used descriptive analyses and multilevel regression analysis to examine patterns and predictors of coenrollment among patients in an intensive care unit (ICU).

RESULTS

Among 4821 trial participants, 1719 (35.7 %) were coenrolled in at least one of 145 unique studies. There were 2167 coenrollment events. The most common design of coenrolled studies were individual-patient randomized trials, followed by cluster randomized trials and platform trials. Most coenrollment involved investigator-initiated studies (1924, 88.8 %). Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be coenrolled than others (odds ratio 1.85 (95 % confidence interval, 1.50, 2.29), p < 0.001). Research coordinators with mid-senior trial experience were more likely to coenrol than others. Coenrolled patients were more likely to miss study drug (median 1 dose, IQR 1-2 doses) compared to others (202 (11.8 %) versus 221 (7.1 %), p < 0.001). Coenrollment did not influence the effect of pantoprazole on gastrointestinal bleeding or 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the REVISE trial, one-third of participants were coenrolled, primarily into another academic randomized trial. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 were more likely to be coenrolled than other patients. Experienced research coordinators were more likely to coenrol than other personnel. Coenrollment did not modify the treatment effect of pantoprazole on the primary trial outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

govNCT03374800.

ICU Care Team's Perception of Clinical Research in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Adequate recruitment is essential for successful clinical research. ICU nurses play a crucial role in identifying eligible patients, introducing research teams, facilitating informed consent, and caring for enrolled patients. However, a larger group of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (the ICU care team) is equally important in promoting clinical research participation.To describe the ICU care team's experiences in ongoing clinical research, identifying perceived barriers and enablers to their participation, and apply a behavior framework to enhance research engagement.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Four adult ICUs and one PICU between June 2021 and March 2023.

SUBJECTS

We recruited nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, allied health professionals, and unit clerks.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

We developed and validated a cross-sectional survey based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model. This survey included: 1) demographic questions (n = 7); 2) research experience questions (n = 6), 3) capability questions (n = 8); 4) opportunity questions (n = 11); 5) and motivation questions (n = 13).A total of 172 ICU care team members completed the survey. Results showed differences in capabilities, opportunities, and motivations among ICU care team members. For example, fellow/attending physicians and nurse practitioners reported higher confidence in discussing research with patients/families, while registered nurses and allied health professionals expressed less confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU care team members face multiple barriers that impact their involvement with the conduct of ICU research. To effectively engage healthcare professionals in this process, it is essential to address their capabilities (research knowledge and skills to communicate research with patients/families), create opportunities (collaboration/communication with research team, discuss research during multidisciplinary rounds), and motivate them (recognize their help and share the results of the research being conducted at their site) to improve ICU care team engagement in the conduct of ICU research.

Innovative designs for trials informing the care of cardiac surgical patients: part I

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Randomized clinical trials, now commonplace and regarded as top-tier evidence, are actually a recent development. The first randomized trial took place in 1948, just six decades ago. As anticipated from a relatively young field, rapid progress continues in response to an ever-increasing number of medical questions that demand answers. We examine evolving methodologies in cardiac anesthesia clinical trials, focusing on the transition towards larger sample sizes, increasing use of pragmatic trial designs, and the innovative adoption of real-time automated enrollment and randomization. We highlight how these changes enhance the reliability and feasibility of clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent understanding in clinical trial methodology acknowledges the importance of large sample sizes, which increase the reliability of findings. As illustrated by P value fragility, small trials can mislead despite statistical significance. Pragmatic trials have gained prominence, offering real-world insights into the effectiveness of various treatments. Additionally, the use of real-time automated enrollment and randomization, particularly in situations where obtaining prior consent is impractical, is an important methodological advance.

SUMMARY

The landscape of cardiac anesthesia clinical trials is rapidly evolving, with a clear trend towards large sample sizes and innovative approaches to enrollment. Recent developments enhance the quality and applicability of research findings, thus providing robust guidance to clinicians.

Informed consent practices in clinical research: present and future

Clinical research must balance the need for ambitious recruitment with protecting participants' autonomy; a requirement of which is informed consent. Despite efforts to improve the informed consent process, participants are seldom provided sufficient information regarding research, hindering their ability to make informed decisions. These issues are particularly pervasive among patients experiencing acute illness or neurological impairment, both of which may impede their capacity to provide consent. There is a critical need to understand the components, requirements, and methods of obtaining true informed consent to achieve the vast numbers required for meaningful research. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the tenets underlying informed consent in research, including the assessment of capacity to consent, considerations for patients unable to consent, when to seek consent from substitute decision-makers, and consent under special circumstances. Various methods for obtaining informed consent are addressed, along with strategies for balancing recruitment and consent.

Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute conditions often lack the capacity to provide informed consent, and narrow therapeutic windows mean there is no time to seek consent from surrogates prior to treatment being commenced. One method to enable the inclusion of this study population in emergency research is through recruitment without prior consent, often known as 'deferred consent'. However, empirical studies have shown a large disparity in stakeholders' opinions regarding this enrolment method. This systematic review aimed to understand different stakeholder groups' attitudes to deferred consent, particularly in relation to the context in which deferred consent might occur.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, EMCare, PsychINFO, Scopus, and HMIC were searched from 1996 to January 2021. Eligible studies focussed on deferred consent processes for adults only, in the English language, and reported empirical primary research. Studies of all designs were included. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded using a narrative approach to 'tell a story' of the findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority examined patient views (n = 19). Data from the members of the public (n = 5) and health care professionals (n =5) were also reported. Four overarching themes were identified: level of acceptability of deferred consent, research-related factors influencing acceptability, personal characteristics influencing views on deferred consent, and data use after refusal of consent or participant death.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that the use of deferred consent would be most acceptable to stakeholders during low-risk emergency research with a narrow therapeutic window and where there is potential for patients to benefit from their inclusion. While the use of narrative synthesis allowed assessment of the included studies, heterogeneous outcome measures meant that variations in study results could not be reliably attributed to the different trial characteristics. Future research should aim to develop guidance for research ethics committees when reviewing trials using deferred consent in emergency research and investigate more fully the views of healthcare professionals which to date have been explored less than patients and members of the public. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020223623.

Co-enrolment to UK Critical Care Studies - A 2019 update

In 2013, a group of clinicians on behalf of the National Institute for Health Research, collaborated with ICU Steps to produce guidance about people being enrolled in more than one critical care trial. This is referred to as "co-enrolment" and can be where a person takes part in one study at the same time as another study (or one after the other in a short time-frame). For instance, being part of a study looking at sepsis drugs and a mechanical ventilation weaning study. The drivers for developing this guidance were a lack of any existing guidance, nationally and internationally, at that time, and a desire to ensure high quality research is conducted. The emphasis was on making trials as safe as possible for patients and ensuring robust trial outcomes. Critical care was seen to lead in this, with our exemplar guidance used across all health research. We wish to revisit this guidance now that there is more experience of coenrolment in critical care trials. There is also more awareness of different consent models, such as deferred consent (taking consent when a person is awake and able to give consent) and consultee consent (asking families or independent professionals to consent). Consenting to coenrolment is an important ethical consideration for the revision of this guidance.

The challenges of PICU research: Lessons learned from a minimal-risk study with PICU parents

Research conducted in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) with families is essential to advancing evidenced-based practice and improving patient outcomes in this unique setting. However, several ethical, logistical, and methodological challenges have been cited in the literature as having a significant effect on the development of PICU research. Investigators at a large midwestern health care center encountered several challenges during the course of a minimal-risk, survey-based study with parents of PICU patients. This manuscript aims to highlight the challenges faced by the research team, which included challenges related to the environment of the PICU, the patients' length of stay, the health status of the patient, and the etiology of the patient's admission, as well as share the actions that the research team took to address these challenges.

Planning for success: overcoming challenges to recruitment and conduct of an open-label emergency department-led paediatric trial

BACKGROUND

Key challenges to the successful conduct of The Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE) trial were identified at the pre-trial stage. These included practitioner anxieties about conducting research without prior consent (RWPC), inexperience in conducting an ED-led trial and use of a medication that was not usual ED practice. As part of an embedded study, we explored parent and practitioner experiences of recruitment, RWPC and conduct of the trial to inform the design and conduct of future ED-led trials.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study within a trial involving (1) questionnaires and interviews with parents of randomised children, (2) interviews and focus groups with EcLiPSE practitioners and (3) audio-recorded trial discussions. We analysed data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 143 parents (93 mothers, 39 fathers, 11 missing information) of randomised children completed a questionnaire and 30 (25 mothers, 5 fathers) were interviewed. We analysed 76 recorded trial recruitment discussions. Ten practitioners (4 medical, 6 nursing) were interviewed, 36 (16 medical, 20 nursing) participated in one of six focus groups. Challenges to the success of the trial were addressed by having a clinically relevant research question, pragmatic trial design, parent and practitioner support for EcLiPSE recruitment and research without prior consent processes, and practitioner motivation and strong leadership. Lack of leadership negatively affected practitioner engagement and recruitment. EcLiPSE completed on time, achieving its required sample size target.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful trial recruitment and conduct in a challenging ED-led trial was driven by trial design, recruitment experience, teamwork and leadership. Our study provides valuable insight from parents and practitioners to inform the design and conduct of future trials in this setting.

Effectiveness of participant recruitment strategies for critical care trials: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Critical care trials are limited by problems with participant recruitment, and little is known about the most effective ways to enhance trial participation. Despite clinical research improving in the past decades within intensive care, participant recruitment remains a challenge. Not all eligible patients are identified, and opportunities for enrolment into clinical trials are often missed. Interventions to facilitate recruitment need to be identified to improve trial conduct in the critical care environment. Therefore, we aimed to establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies in critical care trials in order to inform future research practice.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for English language papers from inception to February 2020. The objectives were to: (1) establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies and (2) recommend how effective recruitment strategies can inform research practice. Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion and critically appraised the quality of the studies. Discrepancies were discussed within the research team. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded into five overarching themes using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019160519).

RESULTS

The search resulted in 2509 initially identified articles, with 15 that met the inclusion criteria. Articles reported a combination of quantitative, mixed methods and qualitative studies and a range of low-, moderate- and high-quality studies. Although, in-keeping with narrative synthesis approaches, none were excluded based on methodological quality. Five themes were identified relating to: patient eligibility identification, who provides information and seeks consent, resource limitations, research culture or environment and the consent model used. The relative success of recruitment strategies was dependent upon the experience and availability of the staff involved in the approach, trial design, the application of the strategy to the specific intensive care environment, the acceptability of the recruitment and consent models used, and the efficiency of the recruitment procedures. Opportunities for consent were missed in a proportion of eligible patients in most studies, suggesting that clinicians may avoid recruiting more complex patients or in more complex situations and that further development of strategies is needed.

CONCLUSION

More effective recruitment strategies are required to enhance recruitment and the representativeness of the patient sample obtained in critical care trials, in order to expand the evidence base for treatments in this field. Greater focus is needed on assessing the performance of different recruitment strategies within different types of studies and critical care research environments. Future research should explore key stakeholders' experiences of, and attitudes towards, recruitment and establish the most important and feasible modifiable barriers to recruitment.

Alternative Tobacco Product Use in Critically Ill Patients

Background: Alternative tobacco product (ATP) use has bee linked to critical illness, however, few studies have examined the use of these substances in critically ill populations. We sought to examine ATP use within critically ill patients and to define barriers in accurately assessing use within this population. Methods: We prospectively studied 533 consecutive patients from the Early Assessment of Renal and Lung Injury study, enrolled between 2013 and 2016 at a tertiary referral center and a safety-net hospital. ATP use information (electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipes, hookahs/waterpipes, and snus/chewing tobacco) was obtained from the patient or surrogate using a detailed survey. Reasons for non-completion of the survey were recorded, and differences between survey responders vs. non-responders, self- vs. surrogate responders, and ATP users vs. non-users were explored. Results: Overall, 80% (n = 425) of subjects (56% male) completed a tobacco product use survey. Of these, 12.2% (n = 52) reported current ATP use, while 5.6% reported using multiple ATP products. When restricted to subjects who were self-responders, 17% reported ATP use, while 10% reported current cigarette smoking alone. The mean age of ATP users was 57 ± 17 years. Those who did not complete a survey were sicker and more likely to have died during admission. Subjects who completed the survey as self-responders reported higher levels of ATP use than ones with surrogate responders (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: ATP use is common among critically ill patients despite them being generally older than traditional users. Survey self-responders were more likely than surrogate responders to report use. These findings highlight the importance of improving our current methods of surveillance of ATP use in older adults in the outpatient setting.

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Objective

We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Background

The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied.

Methods

A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time?

Results

Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment.

Trial registration

VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014.

Novel Clinical Trial Designs to Improve the Efficiency of Research

SUMMARY

Large randomized trials provide the highest level of clinical evidence. However, enrolling large numbers of randomized patients across numerous study sites is expensive and often takes years. There will never be enough conventional clinical trials to address the important questions in medicine. Efficient alternatives to conventional randomized trials that preserve protections against bias and confounding are thus of considerable interest. A common feature of novel trial designs is that they are pragmatic and facilitate enrollment of large numbers of patients at modest cost. This article presents trial designs including cluster designs, real-time automated enrollment, and practitioner-preference approaches. Then various adaptive designs that improve trial efficiency are presented. And finally, the article discusses the advantages of embedding randomized trials within registries.

Patient and caregiver engagement in research: factors that influence co-enrollment in research

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of pediatric participants in studies is difficult due to the vulnerability of this population and the scarcity of certain conditions. Co-enrolling in multiple studies is a strategy that may help overcome this problem. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that co-enrollment may increase patient and caregiver burden, few studies have been conducted from the patient perspective. The objective of this quality improvement project was to elicit patient and caregiver opinions on co-enrolling in multiple research studies.

METHODS

Patients and caregivers attending the rheumatology clinic at The Hospital for Sick Children were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview or focus group session. Participants were asked to respond to ten prompts, organized into five categories: experience in clinical research, multiple studies, study selection, study timing and other comments. Sessions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 10 to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Overall, eighteen caregivers and two patients were included in the study. Participants felt that the level of study involvement, rather than the number of studies, was the biggest factor affecting their decision to participate. Another factor commonly identified was the competing demands of participants' work and family life. Participants indicated that they generally preferred to be informed about all study opportunities and liked to receive this information prior to their appointments. Once informed, they preferred to be approached by the research team while they were waiting for their appointment.

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers are open to the concept of co-enrolling in multiple research studies. There are multiple factors which influence decisions to co-enroll in studies including the demands of the study and personal limitations. These findings will help guide the design and practices of future research.

Structural features shared by ICUs belonging to research networks an international survey. "Critical care research network survey"

PURPOSE

Major acute care research is conducted within critical care research networks (CCRN). Our aims were to describe CCRN and participating ICUs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among all CCRNs belonging to the International Forum of Acute Care Trialists. A network questionnaire was sent to CCRN directors and an ICU e-questionnaire was sent to participating ICUS.

RESULTS

Survey was answered by 366 ICUs from 17 CCRNs (median response rate 21% [12-38]). CCRNs have different organizations (ownership, memberships, funding). The number of studies conducted, patients included and publications varied a lot across CCRNs. The collaboration with other research networks or health authorities was very frequent (n = 13, 76%). Most ICUs (n = 315; 86%) are located in large teaching hospitals in high income countries with a mean volume of 968 (842-1102 (95% CI)) annual admissions. The recognition at the academic level (n = 133; 70%), the collaboration with experts (n = 284; 85%), and improving practices (n = 286; 86%) are incentives reported to belong to a CCRN.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite different organizations, CCRN share similar ventures including the value of improving quality of critical care delivery. Participating ICUs share several structural and managerial patterns. These observations enlighten the importance of CCRN to enhance quality of critical care delivery.

Methods in the design and implementation of the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) clinical trial

Background

Few papers discuss the pragmatics of conducting large, cluster randomized clinical trials. Here we describe the sequential steps taken to develop methods to implement the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) trial that tested the effect of a nurse-implemented, goal-directed, comfort algorithm on clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute respiratory failure.

Methods

After development in a single institution, the RESTORE intervention was pilot-tested in two pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) to evaluate safety and feasibility. After the pilot, the RESTORE intervention was simplified to enhance reproducibility across multiple PICUs. The final RESTORE trial was developed as a cluster randomized clinical trial where the unit of randomization was the PICU, stratified by PICU size, and the unit of inference was the patient. Study execution was revised based on our Data and Safety Monitoring Board’s recommendation to consult with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) on how best to consent eligible subjects. OHRP deemed that the RESTORE intervention posed greater than minimal risk and that all enrolled subjects provide consent reflecting their level of participation.

Results

Thirty-one PICUs of varying size, organization and academic affiliation participated and over 2800 critically ill infants and children supported on mechanical ventilation for acute pulmonary disease were enrolled. The primary outcome for the trial was the duration of mechanical ventilation; secondary outcomes included time awake and comfortable, total sedative exposure and iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms. Throughout the clinical trial the investigative team worked to maintain treatment fidelity, enrollment milestones and co-investigator enthusiasm. We considered the potential impact of competing clinical trials through a decision-making framework.

Conclusions

The RESTORE clinical trial was a large and complex multicenter study that has provided the necessary evidence to guide sedation practices in the field of pediatric critical care. Specific issues that were unique to this trial included level of consent, adding clinical sites to augment enrollment and evaluating the potential impact of competing clinical trials.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifiers: Pilot trial: NCT00142766; Retrospectively registerd on 2 September 2005.

Cluster randomized trial: NCT00814099. Registered on 23 December 2008.

Acceptability of a German multicentre healthcare research study: a survey of research personnels' attitudes, experiences and work load

OBJECTIVES

The DACAPO study as a multicentre nationwide observational healthcare research study investigates the influence of quality of care on the quality of life in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability to the participating research personnels by assessing attitudes, experiences and workload associated with the conduct of the DACAPO study.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective anonymous online survey was sent via email account to 169 participants in 65 study centres. The questionnaire included six different domains: (1) training for performing the study; (2) obtaining informed consent; (3) data collection; (4) data entry using the online documentation system; (5) opinion towards the study and (6) personal data. Descriptive data analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 78 participants took part (46%) in the survey, 75 questionnaires (44%) could be evaluated. 51% were senior medical specialists. 95% considered the time frame of the training as appropriate and the presentation was rated by 93% as good or very good. Time effort for obtaining consent, data collection and entry was considered by 41% as a burden. Support from the coordinating study centre was rated as good or very good by more than 90% of respondents. While the DACAPO study was seen as scientifically relevant by 81%, only 45% considered the study results valuable for improving patient care significantly.

CONCLUSION

Collecting feedback on the acceptability of a large multicentre healthcare research study provided important insights. Recruitment and data acquisition was mainly performed by physicians and often regarded as additional time burden in clinical practice. Reducing the amount of data collection and simplifying data entry could facilitate the conduct of healthcare research studies and could improve motivation of researchers in intensive care medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02637011; Pre-results.

Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges

Opportunities to enter patients into more than one clinical trial are not routinely considered in cancer research and experiences with co-enrolment are rarely reported. Potential benefits of allowing appropriate co-enrolment have been identified in other settings but there is a lack of evidence base or guidance to inform these decisions in oncology. Here, we discuss the benefits and challenges associated with co-enrolment based on experiences in the Add-Aspirin trial - a large, multicentre trial recruiting across a number of tumour types, where opportunities to co-enrol patients have been proactively explored and managed. The potential benefits of co-enrolment include: improving recruitment feasibility; increased opportunities for patients to participate in trials; and collection of robust data on combinations of interventions, which will ensure the ongoing relevance of individual trials and provide more cohesive evidence to guide the management of future patients. There are a number of perceived barriers to co-enrolment in terms of scientific, safety and ethical issues, which warrant consideration on a trial-by-trial basis. In many cases, any potential effect on the results of the trials will be negligible - limited by a number of factors, including the overlap in trial cohorts. Participant representatives stress the importance of autonomy to decide about trial enrolment, providing a compelling argument for offering co-enrolment where there are multiple trials that are relevant to a patient and no concerns regarding safety or the integrity of the trials. A number of measures are proposed for managing and monitoring co-enrolment. Ensuring acceptability to (potential) participants is paramount. Opportunities to enter patients into more than one cancer trial should be considered more routinely. Where planned and managed appropriately, co-enrolment can offer a number of benefits in terms of both scientific value and efficiency of study conduct, and will increase the opportunities for patients to participate in, and benefit from, clinical research.

CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children

BACKGROUND

Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis.

SETTING

14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged < 16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data.

RESULTS

In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness - BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness - heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI -£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI -£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact - the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of > 1.2 per 1000 CVC-days.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations - inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work - adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Perspective on optimizing clinical trials in critical care: how to puzzle out recurrent failures

Background

Critical care is a complex field of medicine, especially because of its diversity and unpredictability. Mortality rates of the diseases are usually high and patients are critically ill, admitted in emergency, and often have several overlapping diseases. This makes research in critical care also complex because of patients’ conditions and because of the numerous ethical and regulatory requirements and increasing global competition. Many clinical trials in critical care have thus failed and almost no drug has yet been developed to treat intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Learning from the failures, clinical trials must now be optimized.

Main body

Several aspects can be improved, beginning with the design of studies that should take into account patients’ diversity in the ICU. At the site level, selection should reflect more accurately the potential of recruitment. Management of all players that can be involved in the research at a site level should be a priority. Moreover, training should be offered to all staff members, including the youngest. National and international networks are also part of the future as they create a collective synergy potentially improving the efficacy of sites. Finally, computerization is another area that must be further developed with the appropriate tools.

Conclusion

Clinical research in the ICU is thus a discipline in its own right that still requires tailored approaches. Changes have to be initiated by the investigators themselves as they know all the specificities of the field.

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context.

AIM

To identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician's perspectives.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research critical care specialty group, in which research active clinicians across different Clinical Research Networks were interviewed. A loosely structured interview schedule was used, based on themes generated from the literature associated with accessing critical care trials. Research teams (critical care doctors, research nurses, and trial coordinators) from hospitals from each Clinical Research Network were contacted to try to achieve representation across the UK.

RESULTS

Interviews were carried out across nine UK Clinical Research Networks with a range of doctors and research nurses. All hospitals were teaching hospitals with varying research nurse numbers and allocated consultant research sessions. There were a range of six to nine ongoing clinical trials in critical care for each centre representative interviewed. Data were analysed using framework analysis, and six final themes were identified related to factors associated with: centre, unit, resources, study, clinician, and patient/family. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting clinical trials was related to resources, namely insufficient human and financial resources, leading to staff and study recruitment difficulties. Clinical uncertainty and equipoise regarding comparative merits of trials were challenging in terms of engaging critical care teams. A number of patient and family factors added complexities in terms of recruitment; however, refusal rates were generally reported as low.

CONCLUSION

Flexibility in funding and employment by research teams enables continuity of studies and staff. Innovative measures to incentivise research nurses and clinical teams can help recruit more patients into trials. Research teams are highly committed to providing cover to recruit critical care trials, and a significant effort to anticipate barriers is undertaken; these endeavours are summarised to provide guidance for other teams wishing to address any potential difficulties.

Patient enrollment and logistical problems top the list of difficulties in clinical research: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Many medical research projects encounter difficulties. The objective of this study was to assess the self-reported frequency of difficulties encountered by medical researchers while conducting research and to identify factors associated with their occurrence.

Methods

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2010 among principal investigators of 996 study protocols approved by the Research Ethics Committee in Geneva, Switzerland, between 2001 and 2005. The authors asked principal investigators to rate the level of difficulty (1: none, to 5: very great) encountered across the research process.

Results

588 questionnaires were sent back (participation rate 59.0 %). 391 (66.5 %) studies were completed at the time of the survey. Investigators reported that the most frequent difficulties were related to patient enrollment (44.3 %), data collection (26.7 %), data analysis and interpretation (21.5 %), collaboration with caregivers (21.0 %), study design (20.4 %), publication in peer-reviewed journal (20.2 %), hiring of competent study personnel (20.2 %), and getting funding (19.2 %). On average, investigators reported 2.8 difficulties per project (SD 2.8, range 0 to 12). In multivariable analysis, the number of difficulties was higher for studies initiated by public sponsors (vs. private), single center studies (vs. multicenter), and studies about treatment, diagnosis or prognosis (i.e., clinical vs. other studies).

Conclusions

Medical researchers reported substantial logistical difficulties in conducting clinical research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0151-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background

A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research.

Methods

We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis.

Results

We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented.

Conclusions

Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes.

PROSPERO protocol registration number

CRD42014014000

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1110-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ethical and scientific considerations for patient enrollment into concurrent clinical trials

Researchers and institutional review boards often consider it inappropriate for patients to be asked to consent to more than one study despite there being no regulatory prohibition on co-enrollment in most countries. There are however ethical, safety, statistical, and practical considerations relevant to co-enrollment, particularly in surgery and perioperative medicine, but co-enrollment can be done if such concerns can be resolved. Preventing eligible patients from co-enrolling in studies which they would authentically value participating in, and whose material risks and benefits they understand, violates their autonomy--and thus contravenes a fundamental principle of research ethics. Statistical issues must be considered but can be addressed. In most cases each trial can be analyzed separately and validly using standard intention to treat principles; selection and other biases can be avoided if enrollment into the second trial is not dependent upon randomized treatment in the first trial; and valid interaction analyses can be performed for each trial by considering the patient's status in the other trial at the time of randomization in the index trial. Clinical research with a potential to inform and improve clinical practice is valuable and should be supported. The ethical, safety, statistical, and practical aspects of co-enrollment can be managed, providing greater opportunity for research-led improvements in clinical practice.

Standard versus accelerated initiation of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury (STARRT-AKI): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Acute kidney injury is a common and devastating complication of critical illness, for which renal replacement therapy is frequently needed to manage severe cases. While a recent systematic review suggested that “earlier” initiation of renal replacement therapy improves survival, completed trials are limited due to small size, single-centre status, and use of variable definitions to define “early” renal replacement therapy initiation.

Methods/design

This is an open-label pilot randomized controlled trial. One hundred critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury will be randomly allocated 1:1 to receive “accelerated” initiation of renal replacement therapy or “standard” initiation at 12 centers across Canada. In the accelerated arm, participants will have a venous catheter placed and renal replacement therapy will be initiated within 12 hours of fulfilling eligibility. In the standard initiation arm, participants will be monitored over 7 days to identify indications for renal replacement therapy. For participants in the standard arm with persistent acute kidney injury, defined as a serum creatinine not declining >50% from the value at the time of eligibility, the initiation of RRT will be discouraged unless one or more of the following criteria are fulfilled: serum potassium ≥6.0 mmol/L; serum bicarbonate ≤10 mmol/L; severe respiratory failure (PaO₂/FiO₂<200) or persisting acute kidney injury for ≥72 hours after fulfilling eligibility. The inclusion criteria are designed to identify a population of critically ill adults with severe acute kidney injury who are likely to need renal replacement therapy during their hospitalization, but not immediately. The primary outcome is protocol adherence (>90%). Secondary outcomes include measures of feasibility (proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the trial, proportion of enrolled patients followed to 90 days for assessment of vital status and the need for renal replacement therapy) and safety (occurrence of adverse events).

Discussion

The optimal timing of renal replacement therapy initiation in patients with severe acute kidney injury remains uncertain, representing an important knowledge gap and a priority for high-quality research. This pilot trial is necessary to establish protocol feasibility, confirm the safety of participants and obtain estimated events rates for design of a large definitive trial.

Trial registration number

NCT01557361

Reflections 1 year into the 21-Center National Institutes of Health--funded WRIST study: a primer on conducting a multicenter clinical trial

The Wrist and Radius Injury Surgery Trial (WRIST) study group is a collaboration of 21 hand surgery centers in the United States, Canada, and Singapore, to showcase the interest and capability of hand surgeons to conduct a multicenter clinical trial. The WRIST study group was formed in response to the seminal systematic review by Margaliot et al and the Cochrane report that indicated marked deficiency in the quality of evidence in the distal radius fracture literature. Since the initial description of this fracture by Colles in 1814, over 2,000 studies have been published on this subject; yet, high-level studies based on the principles of evidence-based medicine are lacking. As we continue to embrace evidence-based medicine to raise the quality of research, the lessons learned during the organization and conduct of WRIST can serve as a template for others contemplating similar efforts. This article traces the course of WRIST by sharing the triumphs and, more important, the struggles faced in the first year of this study.

Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials

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.

team. Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care

AIMS

Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia.

METHODS

We recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent.

RESULTS

Five PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients.

The PRECISE RCT: evolution of an early septic shock fluid resuscitation trial

Severe sepsis and septic shock are the most common reasons for admission to an intensive care unit; and the risk of death is substantial, estimated at approximately 40%. Evidence suggests that early resuscitation strategies that include the use of resuscitation fluids, antibiotics, blood, and inotropes reduce death. Although fluid resuscitation is an immediate life-saving intervention, a fundamental question that remains unanswered is whether the type of resuscitation fluid impacts survival when it is initiated very early in the course of septic shock. A randomized controlled trial published in 2008 confirmed that hydroxyethyl starch fluids cause acute renal failure defined by the requirement for renal replacement therapy. In contrast, a subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial suggests that 4% albumin fluid may reduce death from severe sepsis; however, these findings require confirmation in a large randomized trial. Our team is planning a pragmatic early septic shock fluid resuscitation trial that will compare the effectiveness of 5% albumin vs normal saline on 90-day mortality (PRECISE). In this article, we summarize the scientific rationale and inherent challenges associated with the conduct of PRECISE, the background work and planning elements that have been undertaken, and the PRECISE RCT protocol with rationale and justifications provided for the chosen population, the interventions, and the outcome measures.

Using real-time alerts for clinical trials: Identifying potential study subjects

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are widely accepted as a necessary step in evaluating the safety and efficacy of new pharmaceutical products. In order for a sufficiently powered study, a clinical trial depends on the effective and unbiased recruitment of eligible patients. Trials involving seasonal diseases like influenza pose additional challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This is a feasibility study of a mobile real-time alerting system to systematically identify potential study subjects for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of early intervention with interferon alfacon-1 for patients hospitalized for influenza virus infection.

METHODS

The alerting system was setup in a 471-bed acute care teaching hospital, enabled with computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and a rules-based alerting system. Patients were identified from the entire hospital using two alerts types: pharmacy prescription records for antiviral drugs, and positive influenza laboratory results. Email alerts were generated and sent to BlackBerry(®) devices carried by the study personnel for a 6 month period. The alerts were archived automatically on a secure server and were exported for analysis in Microsoft Access.

RESULTS

Over a period of 21 weeks, 779 total alerts were received. The study team was alerted to 241 patients, of whom 85 were potential study subjects. The alert system identified all but one of the patients independently identified by infection control.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time identification of potential study subjects is possible with the integration of computerized physician order entry and BlackBerry(®) technology. It is a viable method for the systematic identification of patients throughout a hospital, particularly for trials investigating time-sensitive disease progression.

A Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project in collaboration with the international forum for acute care trialists - Collaborative H1N1 Adjuvant Treatment pilot trial (CHAT): study protocol and design of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Swine origin influenza A/H1N1 infection (H1N1) emerged in early 2009 and rapidly spread to humans. For most infected individuals, symptoms were mild and self-limited; however, a small number developed a more severe clinical syndrome characterized by profound respiratory failure with hospital mortality ranging from 10 to 30%. While supportive care and neuraminidase inhibitors are the main treatment for influenza, data from observational and interventional studies suggest that the course of influenza can be favorably influenced by agents not classically considered as influenza treatments. Multiple observational studies have suggested that HMGCoA reductase inhibitors (statins) can exert a class effect in attenuating inflammation. The Collaborative H1N1 Adjuvant Treatment (CHAT) Pilot Trial sought to investigate the feasibility of conducting a trial during a global pandemic in critically ill patients with H1N1 with the goal of informing the design of a larger trial powered to determine impact of statins on important outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

A multi-national, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of once daily enteral rosuvastatin versus matched placebo administered for 14 days for the treatment of critically ill patients with suspected, probable or confirmed H1N1 infection. We propose to randomize 80 critically ill adults with a moderate to high index of suspicion for H1N1 infection who require mechanical ventilation and have received antiviral therapy for ≤ 72 hours. Site investigators, research coordinators and clinical pharmacists will be blinded to treatment assignment. Only research pharmacy staff will be aware of treatment assignment. We propose several approaches to informed consent including a priori consent from the substitute decision maker (SDM), waived and deferred consent. The primary outcome of the CHAT trial is the proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the study. Secondary outcomes will evaluate adherence to medication administration regimens, the proportion of primary and secondary endpoints collected, the number of patients receiving open-label statins, consent withdrawals and the effect of approved consent models on recruitment rates.

DISCUSSION

Several aspects of study design including the need to include central randomization, preserve allocation concealment, ensure study blinding compare to a matched placebo and the use novel consent models pose challenges to investigators conducting pandemic research. Moreover, study implementation requires that trial design be pragmatic and initiated in a short time period amidst uncertainty regarding the scope and duration of the pandemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN45190901.

Tight glycemic control: what do we really know, and what should we expect?

Tight glycemic control has engendered large numbers of investigations, with conflicting results. The world has largely embraced intensive insulin as a practice, but applies this therapy with great variability in the manner of glucose control and measurement. The present commentary reviews what we actually know with certainty from this vast sea of literature, and what we can expect looking forward.

Implementation of a research awareness program in the critical care unit: effects on families and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Successful conduct of research studies in the critically ill requires communication with families, substitute decision-makers and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of a communication package on attitude, knowledge and research awareness among family members and clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, single centre, before and after study. We distributed a validated questionnaire to family members and clinicians assessing the three domains of research attitude, knowledge and awareness before and after implementation of a research communication package consisting of an informational pamphlet and display poster.

RESULTS

Response rates for the family member survey were 22% (baseline) and 15% (post-intervention). No differences were found in the attitude, knowledge and awareness of family members following implementation of the research communication package. The global awareness score (calculated by summing the domain responses) rose 4.0 points (P=0.056). Response rates for clinicians were 36% (baseline) and 33% (post-intervention). No differences were found in attitude, knowledge and awareness and global awareness score.

CONCLUSION

Passive dissemination of research materials was not sufficient to generate an increased awareness, knowledge, or perceived utility of research.

Informed consent for clinical research involving patients with chest disease in the United States

The concept of informed consent was applied to clinical research in the United States after research abuses were documented in Nazi Germany and this country. The concept is imbedded in the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. Federal regulations governing clinical research require both the consent of subjects and peer review of research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations contains basic provisions for the protection of research subjects and requirements for informed consent by subjects or their surrogates; surrogate consent may or may not be allowed under state law. Other subparts contain further protections for subjects with diminished capacity, such as children, that limit the kind of research in which they can participate. Whether these protections should be extended to decisionally impaired adults, including those who are critically ill, remains to be determined. Consent can be deferred or waived for emergency research only rarely in the United States, in contrast to other countries.

Informed consent for and regulation of critical care research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical care is a special area in which research needs to take place, because of the severity of the diseases which are treated there, but it is also a place where research faces a lot of hurdles and difficulties. The main cause of difficulties is the consent issue, as most patients cannot consent for themselves. Recently, all national legislations in the countries of the European Union have been modified to include the provisions of directive 2001/20.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review article provides a summary of the recent literature concerning the issue of consent for clinical care research such as how the surrogate consent reflects the view of the patient and how time consuming and inaccurate can be the consultation of a community before the start of a trial with a waiver of consent. Another hurdle to research is the rigidity of our legislations concerning clinical research, especially the absence of a simplified way for low or no-risk research. This article shows how this situation is potentially deleterious and how it could ultimately forbid low-risk research.

SUMMARY

Critical research remains a domain in which research on patients is difficult and controversial. Regulation can be difficult to implement, largely inadequate or uselessly complicated. Intensive care physicians need to keep pressure on politicians and lawmakers to constantly explain the necessity and specificities of critical care research.

The unique challenges of enrolling patients into multiple clinical trials

Multiple interventions are implemented to save the lives of a critically ill patients. The therapeutic value of most of these interventions remains untested. Enrollment of patients in the intensive care unit into multiple studies could improve the efficiency of testing interventions in the intensive care unit. Unfortunately, enrollment of intensive care unit patients into multiple studies is often discouraged. If the same patient is enrolled into more than one study, there is a risk that interactions between interventions could lead to false conclusions. In addition, there is a belief that the families of critically ill patients might feel overly stressed if they are repeatedly approached for consent. This article provides a rationale for enrolling intensive care unit patients into multiple clinical trials. Factorial designs are efficient, but their inherent limitations must be noted. The little evidence that is available shows that most patients would enroll in multiple studies and do not feel overly stressed by participating in more than one study. Modifications to subject consent, data collection, and data analysis for coenrollment could facilitate it. In conclusion, more vigorous promotion of thoughtful coenrollment policies could increase the efficiency of critical care research.