The unique challenges of enrolling patients into multiple clinical trials

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.

A Decision-Making Grid for Coenrollment in Multiple Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Although subject coenrollment into multiple trials is desirable, thoughtful consideration is required to avoid compromising each trial's scientific integrity.

OBJECTIVE

We developed a Decision-Making Grid (GRID) to help investigators determine whether a clinical trial is compatible with a second clinical trial, thus allowing coenrollment, or if it should be considered competing, prohibiting coenrollment.

METHODS

The GRID evaluates 21 elements across four domains: scientific integrity, data interpretation, feasibility/burden, and additional considerations. Optimally, each principal investigator shares their protocol, completes the GRID independently, and then meets to compare their perspectives, seeking a mutually acceptable agreement.

RESULTS

The GRID has facilitated coenrollment decision-making for the RESTORE and PROSpect pediatric critical care clinical trials. In RESTORE , five trials were reviewed; one was approved for coenrollment, and four were deemed competing. In PROSpect , 26 trials have been reviewed; 20 are approved for coenrollment, and six were deemed competing. In both RESTORE and PROSpect , the principal investigators of multiple trials arranged a mutually acceptable sharing agreement.

DISCUSSION

The GRID provides a systematic process to help investigators evaluate the effect of coenrollment in multiple clinical trials.

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.

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.

Interactions in clinical trials: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an explorative study of four randomized ICU trials on use of pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations.

METHODS

This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses' tests of interaction. A p-value below .05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded randomized controlled trials was infrequent and variable

OBJECTIVE

To explore the approach to participant coenrolment in publicly funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to consider its impact on study recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study of the UK National Institute for Health Research Journals Library was undertaken. RCTs funded between 2010 and 2019 were eligible. The reporting of coenrolment criteria was assessed through inspection of publicly available study protocols. Where present, the approach to coenrolment was examined, including circumstances in which it was permitted/prohibited and the mechanism for decision-making. For completed RCTs, the impact on recruitment was explored by comparing rates of early recruitment (completion before the expected end date) and extensions (completion after the expected end date) between studies, which did and did not permit coenrolment.

RESULTS

Of 219 eligible protocols, coenrolment was addressed in 94 (42.9%). Twenty-three (24.5%) of these did not allow recruitment to multiple studies, while 71 (75.5%) permitted it according to a series of caveats, including considerations of study outcomes, intervention type, and patient burden. The final decision for coenrolment rested with the local recruitment team in 57 (60.6%) and with the central organizing team in 37 (39.4%). Early completion of recruitment occurred in 8 of 64 (12.5%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 5 of 20 (25.0%) where it was not (P = 0.285). An extension to recruitment time was required in 31 of 64 (48.4%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 9 of 11 (45.0%) where it was not (P = 0.788).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded RCTs is infrequent, and where present, the approach to decision-making is widely variable. In this study, policies of coenrolment were not associated with gains in trial recruitment.

Parental experiences of being approached to join multiple neonatal clinical trials: qualitative study (PARENT)

OBJECTIVE

To explore parents' perceptions and experience of being approached for enrolment of their preterm infant in more than one trial or study.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving 17 in-depth semistructured interviews, with parents who had been approached for multiple studies and who subsequently consented for their infant(s) to join at least one. Parents who declined all studies were not approached.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Parents of preterm infants receiving care at one of three neonatal intensive care units in the north of England.

FINDINGS

Most parents did not view concurrent participation in multiple trials or studies as a significant issue within the wider context of their infant's care. Most parents did not feel pressured into enrolling their infant into more than one study, but some suggested that participation in several provided justification for the subsequent refusal to join others, articulating feeling of guilt at saying 'no', and others appeared fatigued by multiple approaches. Parents focused on the perceived risks and benefits of each individual study and, while acknowledging that making a fully informed decision was not possible, largely agreed due to their belief in the benefits of research, trust in the health professionals caring for their baby and a range of complex personal motivations.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents valued the autonomy to make decisions about participation and felt, with hindsight, that their decisions were right. Research teams could be more aware of parental feelings of guilt or gratitude that may motivate them to give consent. Similarly, the capacity of parents to fully remember details of multiple studies when they are stressed, and their infant is sick, should be taken into consideration, and continued efforts should be made to ensure ongoing consent to participation.

A Prehospital Acute Stroke Trial has Only Modest Impact on Enrollment in Concurrent, Post-arrival-Recruiting Stroke Trials

BACKGROUND

Because "time is brain," acute stroke trials are migrating to the prehospital setting. The impact upon enrollment in post-arrival trials of earlier recruitment in a prehospital trial requires delineation.

METHODS

We analyzed all patients recruited into acute and prevention stroke trials during an 8-year period when an academic medical center (AMC) was participating in a prehospital treatment trial - the NIH Field Administration of Stroke Treatment - Magnesium (FAST-MAG) study.

RESULTS

During the study period, in addition to FAST-MAG, the AMC participated in 33 post-arrival stroke trials: 27 for acute cerebral ischemia, one for intracerebral hemorrhage, and 5 secondary prevention trials. Throughout the study period, the AMC was recruiting for at least 3 concurrent post-arrival acute trials. Among 199 patients enrolled in acute stroke trials, 98 (49%) were in FAST-MAG and 101 (51%) in concurrent, post-arrival acute trials. Among FAST-MAG patients, 67% were not eligible for any concurrent acute, post-arrival trial. Of 134 patients eligible for post-arrival acute trials, 101 (76%) were enrolled in post-arrival trials and 32 (24%) in FAST-MAG. Leading reasons FAST-MAG patients were ineligible for post-arrival acute trials were: NIHSS too low (23.4%), intracranial hemorrhage (17.9%), IV tPA used in standard management (9.0%), NIHSS too high (7.1%), and age too high (5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A prehospital hyperacute stroke trial with wide entry criteria reduced only modestly, by one-fourth, enrollment into concurrently active, post-arrival stroke trials. Simultaneous performance of prehospital and post-arrival acute and secondary prevention stroke trials in research networks is feasible.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents.

SETTING

The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment.

INTERVENTIONS

When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability.

RESULTS

The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sequential co-enrolment in randomised trials in neonatal intensive care medicine

In many medical research settings, such as the neonatal intensive care unit, the number of patients who are eligible for a randomised clinical trial is relatively small and recruiting a sufficient number of patients into trials is often difficult. Furthermore, some infants may have already been enrolled into a trial as a fetus. Sequential co-enrolment of patients into more than one trial may offer a solution, yet runs the risk of contaminated results. We consider the situation of two sequential trials and describe requirements for different possible treatments effects ('estimands') to be estimated in such situations. These estimands differ regarding the extent to which participation status and treatment status in the previous trial is accounted for. Because of differences in available information about previous trials, analyses may result in estimated effects which differ in terms of interpretation and generalisability, except when in the absence of an interaction between the studied treatments. If co-enrolment cannot be ruled out, researchers should collect information about co-enrolment and treatment status in a previous or concurrent trial and mitigate the trial analysis plan in order to estimate meaningful effects.

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.

Enrollment of Neonates in More Than One Clinical Trial

Because the highest rates of morbidity and mortality in neonates are seen in those born at <32 weeks' gestation, this group has the most urgent need for novel therapies to improve survival and outcome. Legislative efforts in the United States and Europe have attempted to address this issue by requiring the study of drugs, biological and nutritional products, devices, and other therapies in this population through a combination of high-quality regulatory and clinical trials, quality improvement initiatives, and observational studies. Because there are relatively small numbers of very preterm neonates born each year in any 1 country or continent, and because a significant number of clinical trials are recruiting at any 1 time, a neonate may meet enrollment criteria for >1 clinical trial. Neonatal units that have the infrastructure and resources to engage in research frequently face the question of whether it is permissible to enroll a neonate in >1 trial. This article examines the pertinent scientific, ethical, regulatory, and industry issues that should be taken into account when considering enrolling neonates in multiple clinical studies.

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.

Research as a Standard of Care in the PICU

OBJECTIVES

Excellence in clinical care coupled with basic and applied research reflects the maturation of a medical subspecialty, advances that field, and provides objective data for identifying best practices. PICUs are uniquely suited for conducting translational and clinical research. In addition, multiple investigations have reported that a majority of parents are interested in their children's participation in clinical research, even when the research offers no direct benefit to their child. However, such activity may generate ethical conflict with bedside care providers trying to acutely identify the best approach for an individual critically ill child. Ultimately, this conflict may diminish enthusiasm for the generation of scientific evidence that supports the application of evidence-based medicine into PICU clinical standard work. Accordingly this review endeavors to provide an overview of current state PICU clinical research strengths, liabilities, opportunities, and barriers and contrast this with an established pediatric hematology-oncology iterative research model that constitutes a learning healthcare system.

DATA SOURCES, DATA EXTRACTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Narrative review of medical literature published in English.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, most PICU therapy is not evidence based. Developing a learning healthcare system in the PICU integrates clinical research into usual practice and fosters a culture of evidence-based learning and continual care improvement. As PICU mortality has significantly decreased, identification and validation of patient-centered, clinically relevant research outcome measures other than mortality is essential for future clinical trial design. Because most pediatric critical illness may be classified as rare diseases, participation in research networks will facilitate iterative, collaborative, multiinstitutional investigations that over time identify the best practices to improve PICU outcomes. Despite real ethical challenges, critically ill children and their families should have the opportunity to participate in translational/clinical research whenever feasible.

Coenrollment in a randomized trial of high-frequency oscillation: prevalence, patterns, predictors, and outcomes*

OBJECTIVE

Enrollment of individual patients into more than one study has been poorly evaluated. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients, researchers and centers involved in coenrollment, studies precluding coenrollment, and the prevalence, patterns, predictors, and outcomes of coenrollment in a randomized clinical trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, METHODS

We conducted an observational study nested within the OSCILLation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated Early Trial, which compared high-frequency oscillatory ventilation to conventional ventilation. We collected patient, center, and study data on coenrollment in randomized patients. Multilevel regression examined factors independently associated with coenrollment, considering clustering within centers. We examined the effect of coenrollment on safety and the trial outcome.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 127 of 548 randomized patients (23.2%) were coenrolled in 25 unique studies. Coenrollment was reported in 17 of 39 centers (43.6%). Patients were most commonly coenrolled in one additional randomized clinical trial (76; 59.8%). Coenrollment was less likely in older patients (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.997), and in ICUs with greater than 26 beds (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34-0.94), and more likely by investigators with more than 11 years of experience (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.82), by research coordinators with more than 8 years of experience (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.18) and in Canada (odds ratio, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.43-15.15). Serious adverse events were similar between coenrolled high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and control patients. Coenrollment did not modify the treatment effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Coenrollment occurred in 23% of patients, commonly in younger patients, in smaller centers with more research infrastructure, and in Canada. Coenrollment did not influence patient safety or trial results.

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.

Concealment and fabrication by experienced research subjects

BACKGROUND

Subjects who enroll in multiple studies have been found to use deception at times to overcome restrictive screening criteria. Deception undermines subject safety as well as study integrity. Little is known about the extent to which experienced research subjects use deception and what type of information is concealed, withheld, or distorted.

PURPOSE

This study examined the prevalence of deception and types of deception used by subjects enrolling in multiple studies.

METHODS

Self-report of deceptive behavior used to gain entry into clinical trials was measured among a sample of 100 subjects who had participated in at least two studies in the past year.

RESULTS

Three quarters of subjects reported concealing some health information from researchers in their lifetime to avoid exclusion from enrollment in a study. Health problems were concealed by 32% of the sample, use of prescribed medications by 28%, and recreational drug use by 20% of the sample. One quarter of subjects reported exaggerating symptoms in order to qualify for a study and 14% reported pretending to have a health condition in order to qualify.

LIMITATIONS

Although this study finds high rates of lifetime deceptive behavior, the frequency and context of this behavior is unknown. Understanding the context and frequency of deception will inform the extent to which it jeopardizes study integrity and safety.

CONCLUSION

The use of deception threatens both participant safety and the integrity of research findings. Deception may be fueled in part by undue inducements, overly restrictive criteria for entry, and increased demand for healthy controls. Screening measures designed to detect deception among study subjects would aid in both protecting subjects and ensuring the quality of research findings.

Co-enrollment of critically ill patients into multiple studies: patterns, predictors and consequences

INTRODUCTION

Research on co-enrollment practices and their impact are limited in the ICU setting. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe patterns and predictors of co-enrollment of patients in a thromboprophylaxis trial, and 2) to examine the consequences of co-enrollment on clinical and trial outcomes.

METHODS

In an observational analysis of an international thromboprophylaxis trial in 67 ICUs, we examined the co-enrollment of critically ill medical-surgical patients into more than one study, and examined the clinical and trial outcomes among co-enrolled and non-co-enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Among 3,746 patients enrolled in PROTECT (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial), 713 (19.0%) were co-enrolled in at least one other study (53.6% in a randomized trial, 37.0% in an observational study and 9.4% in both). Six factors independently associated with co-enrollment (all P < 0.001) were illness severity (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.53 for each 10-point Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score increase), substitute decision-makers providing consent, rather than patients (OR 3.31, 2.03 to 5.41), experience of persons inviting consent (OR 2.67, 1.74 to 4.11 for persons with > 10 years' experience compared to persons with none), center size (all ORs > 10 for ICUs with > 15 beds), affiliation with trials groups (OR 5.59, 3.49 to 8.95), and main trial rather than pilot phase (all ORs > 8 for recruitment year beyond the pilot). Co-enrollment did not influence clinical or trial outcomes or risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-enrollment was strongly associated with features of the patients, research personnel, setting and study. Co-enrollment had no impact on trial results, and appeared safe, acceptable and feasible. Transparent reporting, scholarly discourse, ethical analysis and further research are needed on the complex topic of co-enrollment during critical illness.

Fluid balance in critically ill children with acute lung injury

OBJECTIVES

In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (NCT00281268), adults with acute lung injury randomized to a conservative vs. liberal fluid management protocol had increased days alive and free of mechanical ventilator support (ventilator-free days). Recruiting sufficient children with acute lung injury into a pediatric trial is challenging. A Bayesian statistical approach relies on the adult trial for the a priori effect estimate, requiring fewer patients. Preparing for a Bayesian pediatric trial mirroring the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, we aimed to: 1) identify an inverse association between fluid balance and ventilator-free days; and 2) determine if fluid balance over time is more similar to adults in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial liberal or conservative arms.

DESIGN

Multicentered retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Five pediatric intensive care units.

PATIENTS

Mechanically ventilated children (age≥1 month to <18 yrs) with acute lung injury admitted in 2007-2010.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fluid intake, output, and net fluid balance were collected on days 1-7 in 168 children with acute lung injury (median age 3 yrs, median PaO2/FIO2 138) and weight-adjusted (mL/kg). Using multivariable linear regression to adjust for age, gender, race, admission day illness severity, PaO2/FIO2, and vasopressor use, increasing cumulative fluid balance (mL/kg) on day 3 was associated with fewer ventilator-free days (p=.02). Adjusted for weight, daily fluid balance on days 1-3 and cumulative fluid balance on days 1-7 were higher in these children compared to adults in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial conservative arm (p<.001, each day) and was similar to adults in the liberal arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing fluid balance on day 3 in children with acute lung injury at these centers is independently associated with fewer ventilator-free days. Our findings and the similarity of fluid balance patterns in our cohort to adults in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial liberal arm demonstrate the need to determine whether a conservative fluid management strategy improves clinical outcomes in children with acute lung injury and support a Bayesian trial mirroring the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial.

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.

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.