A Qualitative Analysis of Factors Influencing Critical Care Trial Enrollment Among Surrogates

Equity in Clinical Care and Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.

Barriers and Facilitators of Surrogates Providing Consent for Critically Ill Patients in Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Enrollment into critical care clinical trials is often hampered by the need to rely on surrogate decision-makers. To identify potential interventions facilitating enrollment into critical care clinical trials, a better understanding of surrogate decision-making for critical care clinical trial enrollment is needed.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the barriers and facilitators of critical care trial enrollment? What are surrogate decision-makers' perspectives on proposed interventions to facilitate trial enrollment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using an inductive approach.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis confirmed previous research showing that trust in the system, assessing the risks and benefits of trial participation, the desire to help others, and building medical knowledge as important motivating factors for trial enrollment. Two previously undescribed concerns among surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients were identified, including the potential to interfere with clinical treatment decisions and negative sentiment about placebos. Surrogates viewed public recognition and charitable donations for participation as favorable potential interventions to encourage trial enrollment. However, participants viewed direct financial incentives and prioritizing research participants during medical rounds negatively.

INTERPRETATION

This study confirms and extends previous findings that health system trust, study risks and benefits, altruism, knowledge generation, interference with clinical care, and placebos are key concerns and barriers for surrogate decision-makers to enroll patients in critical care trials. Future studies are needed to evaluate if charitable giving on the patient's behalf and public recognition are effective strategies to promote enrollment into critical care trials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of enrollment into ARDS and sepsis trials published between 2009 and 2019 in major journals

BACKGROUND

Enrollment problems are common among randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU. However, little is known about actual trial enrollment rates and influential factors. We set out to determine the overall enrollment rate in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), or sepsis, and which factors influenced enrollment rate.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching Pubmed using predefined terms for ARDS/ALI and sepsis to identify individually RCTs published among the seven highest impact general medicine and seven highest impact critical care journals between 2009 and 2019. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using an electronic database management system. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the eligible trials for the primary outcome of enrollment rate by time and site.

RESULTS

Out of 457 articles identified, 94 trials met inclusion criteria. Trials most commonly evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (53%), were non-industry funded (78%), and required prospective informed consent (81%). The overall mean enrollment rate was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.21) participants per month per site. Enrollment in ARDS/ALI and sepsis trials were 0.48 (95% CI 0.32-0.70) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.62-1.56) respectively. The enrollment rate was significantly higher for single-center trials (4.86; 95% CI 2.49-9.51) than multicenter trials (0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.66). Of the 36 trials that enrolled < 95% of the target sample size, 8 (22%) reported slow enrollment as the reason.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, recent ARDS/ALI and sepsis clinical trials had an overall enrollment rate of less than 1 participant per site per month. Novel approaches to improve critical care trial enrollment efficiency are needed to facilitate the translation of best evidence into practice.