The DiReCT study - improving recruitment into clinical trials: a mixed methods study investigating the ethical acceptability, feasibility and recruitment yield of the cohort multiple randomised controlled trials design

Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.

RESULTS

A total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.

Actionable Solutions to Achieve Health Equity in Chronic Liver Disease

There are well-described racial and ethnic disparities in the burden of chronic liver diseases. Hispanic persons are at highest risk for developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the fastest growing cause of liver disease. Hepatitis B disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent. The highest rates of hepatitis C occur in American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In addition to disparities in disease burden, there are also marked racial and ethnic disparities in access to treatments, including liver transplantation. Disparities also exist by gender and geography, especially in alcohol-related liver disease. To achieve health equity, we must address the root causes that drive these inequities. Understanding the role that social determinants of health play in the disparate health outcomes that are currently observed is critically important. We must forge and/or strengthen collaborations between patients, community members, other key stakeholders, health care providers, health care institutions, professional societies, and legislative bodies. Herein, we provide a high-level review of current disparities in chronic liver disease and describe actionable strategies that have potential to bridge gaps, improve quality, and promote equity in liver care.

Opt-out rates and reasons for non-participation in a single-arm feasibility trial (ENGAGE) of a guided internet-administered CBT-based intervention for parents of children treated for cancer: a nested cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Difficulties with recruitment into clinical trials are common. An opt-out recruitment strategy, whereby potential participants can decline further contact about a study (opt-out), and non-responders are contacted, may facilitate participation. Primary objectives examined opt-out and consent rates, mode and time point of opt-out, and sociodemographic characteristics of those who opted out versus those who chose to participate in a single-arm feasibility trial (ENGAGE) of a guided, internet-administered, cognitive-behavioural therapy-based intervention for parents of children treated for cancer. Secondary objectives examined reasons for non-participation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey nested within the ENGAGE feasibility trial.

SETTING

The intervention was delivered from Uppsala University, with parents located throughout Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Potential participants were recruited 3 months-5 years following their child ending treatment for cancer and were identified via their personal identification number (via the Swedish Childhood Cancer Registry and Swedish Tax Agency) and invited via postal invitation packs and could opt out via post, online, telephone or email. Those who did not opt out or consent, within 4 weeks, received up to five telephone calls and/or one postal reminder.

RESULTS

Of 509 invited, 164 (32.2%) opted out, 78 (47.6%) via post, 53 (32.3%) via telephone, 24 (14.6%) online, and 6 (3.7%) via email, 88 (53.7%) opted out after at least one telephone call and/or postal reminder. There was a trend for parents with lower educational levels to opt out. No need of psychological support, lack of time, and no interest in internet-administered self-help were frequently reported reasons for non-participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results emphasise the importance of using different opt-out modes and suggest future research should consider how to widen study participation for parents with lower education levels. Self-identifying a need for psychological support and the acceptability of internet-administered self-help are important factors for participation and should be considered in future research to increase recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN57233429.

PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study

Introduction

The traditional double blind RCT is the ‘gold standard’ trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.

Results

Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.

Conclusion

The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research

The urgent need to expand enrollment in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) research has synergized calls for an empiric science of research recruitment, yet, progress in this area is hindered by challenges to measuring views toward ADRD research. This paper reports ethical and methodological considerations identified through a prospective qualitative study investigating ADRD patient and caregiver views on research recruitment and participation surrounding acute illness. Ethical and methodological considerations were identified through a combination of memoing, collaboration with a Community Advisory Board (CAB), and analysis of interview data from ADRD patients (N = 3) and/or caregivers (N = 28). These included risk for undue influence attributable to role ambiguity/motivational misconceptions, divergent decision-making preferences, bias contributing to low referrals of ADRD participants, and difficulty answering abstract/hypothetical questions. Many considerations were successfully addressed with multifaceted, proactive strategies, and CAB input. Findings have implications for recruitment science research and the validity of inferences regarding research preferences.

Perinatal epidemiology: Issues, challenges, and potential solutions

Perinatal epidemiology research is concerned with identifying the effects of events during pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes that include maternal, fetal, and neonatal health outcomes. Randomized trials in perinatal research face many challenges, including randomization difficulties, ethical considerations, and inadequate statistical power due to the small number of subjects eligible for participation. For these reasons, most epidemiological studies conducted in this research field are observational and include different types of bias. This review describes the key methodological difficulties in the design and analysis of randomized and observational studies in perinatal epidemiology, and provides potential corrective approaches.

The role of relapse prevention for depression in collaborative care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Relapse (the re-emergence of depression symptoms before full recovery) is common in depression and relapse prevention strategies are not well researched in primary care settings. Collaborative care is effective for treating acute phase depression but little is known about the use of relapse prevention strategies in collaborative care. We undertook a systematic review to identify and characterise relapse prevention strategies in the context of collaborative care.

METHODS

We searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for depression. In addition to published material, we obtained provider and patient manuals from authors to provide more detail on intervention content. We reported the extent to which collaborative care interventions addressed four relapse prevention components.

RESULTS

93 RCTs were identified. 31 included a formal relapse prevention plan; 42 had proactive monitoring and follow-up after the acute phase; 39 reported strategies for optimising sustained medication adherence; and 20 of the trials reported psychological or psycho-educational treatments persisting beyond the acute phase or focussing on long-term health/relapse prevention. 30 (32.3%) did not report relapse prevention approaches.

LIMITATIONS

We did not receive trial materials for approximately half of the trials, which limited our ability to identify relevant features of intervention content.

CONCLUSION

Relapse is a significant risk amongst people treated for depression and interventions are needed that specifically address and minimise this risk. Given the advantages of collaborative care as a delivery system for depression care, there is scope for more consistency and increased effort to implement and evaluate relapse prevention strategies.

Six dimensions of research trial acceptability: how much, what, when, in what circumstances, to whom and why?

Ethics guidelines emphasise that research should be acceptable to the people invited to take part. However, acceptability is subjective and dependent on context, complicating its assessment and use as an ethical standard. This paper examines the concept of acceptability in relation to parents' perspectives on a paediatric vaccine trial in Malawi. We examined decisions on participation and experiences of the trial through interviews with parents in 41 households invited to enrol their children and participant observation of trial processes. Fieldwork took place in Chikwawa, Southern Malawi from February-October 2016. Parents were not neatly split between those who saw the trial as acceptable and those who did not; instead there were mixed and changing feelings among parents who enrolled their children, and among those who withdrew or did not take part. Some parents agreed to participate but had concerns about the trial, while others expressed satisfaction with the trial but still did not take part. These experiences indicate substantial variation in the nature of acceptance. We describe these variations in relation to six dimensions of acceptability: how acceptable the trial is, what aspects are acceptable, changes over time, circumstances affecting acceptability, variations between people, and reasons for participation or non-participation. The findings illustrate the difficulty of determining whether a trial is sufficiently acceptable to potential participants. We suggest that clarifying definitions of acceptability and examining how acceptability varies in degree, between trial components, over time, and between people and contexts may help researchers generate more nuanced descriptions of acceptability that support responsive and ethical trial design.

Commentary: considerations for using the 'Trials within Cohorts' design in a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product

Background

The ‘trials within cohorts’ (TwiC) design is a pragmatic approach to randomised trials in which trial participants are randomly selected from an existing cohort. The design has multiple potential benefits, including the option of conducting multiple trials within the same cohort.

Main text

To date, the TwiC design methodology been used in numerous clinical settings but has never been applied to a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMP). We have recently secured the necessary approvals to undertake the first CTIMP using the TwiC design. In this paper, we describe some of the considerations and modifications required to ensure such a trial is compliant with Good Clinical Practice and international clinical trials regulations.

We advocate using a two-stage consent process and using the consent stages to explicitly differentiate between trial participants and cohort participants who are providing control data. This distinction ensured compliance but had consequences with respect to costings, recruitment and the trial assessment schedule.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that it is possible to secure ethical and regulatory approval for a CTIMP TwiC. By including certain considerations at the trial design stage, we believe this pragmatic and efficient methodology could be utilised in other CTIMPs in future.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2432-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases

Objectives

The “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial” (cmRCT) is a recent innovation by which novel interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice. The use of cmRCTs is outpacing its methodological understanding, and more appropriate methods for designing and analyzing such trials are urgently needed.

Study Design and Setting

We established the UK Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care cohort of 4,377 patients with long-term conditions within which we are conducting a cmRCT (“Proactive Telephone Coaching and Tailored Support”) of telephone-based health coaching.

Results

We identify some key methodological challenges to the use of the cmRCT in actual practice. Principal are issues around statistical power, sample size, and treatment effect estimation, for which we provide appropriate methods. Sampling procedures commonly applied in conventional RCTs can result in unintentional selection bias. The fixed data collection points that feature in cmRCTs can also threaten validity.

Conclusion

The cmRCT may offer advantages over conventional trial designs. However, a cmRCT requires appropriate power calculation, sampling, and analysis procedures; else, studies may be underpowered or subject to validity biases. We offer solutions to some of the key issues, but further methodological investigations are needed. Cohort multiple RCT–specific Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance may be indicated.

"Open mesh" or "strictly selected population" recruitment? The experience of the randomized controlled MeMeMe trial

Among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), trials for primary prevention require large samples and long follow-up to obtain a high-quality outcome; therefore the recruitment process and the drop-out rates largely dictate the adequacy of the results. We are conducting a Phase III trial on persons with metabolic syndrome to test the hypothesis that comprehensive lifestyle changes and/or metformin treatment prevents age-related chronic diseases (the MeMeMe trial, EudraCT number: 2012-005427-32, also registered on ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02960711]). Here, we briefly analyze and discuss the reasons which may lead to participants dropping out from trials. In our experience, participants may back out of a trial for different reasons. Drug-induced side effects are certainly the most compelling reason. But what are the other reasons, relating to the participants' perception of the progress of the trial which led them to withdraw after randomization? What about the time-dependent drop-out rate in primary prevention trials? The primary outcome of this analysis is the point of drop-out from trial, defined as the time from the randomization date to the withdrawal date. Survival functions were non-parametrically estimated using the product-limit estimator. The curves were statistically compared using the log-rank test (P=0.64, not significant). Researchers involved in primary prevention RCTs seem to have to deal with the paradox of the proverbial "short blanket syndrome". Recruiting only highly motivated candidates might be useful for the smooth progress of the trial but it may lead to a very low enrollment rate. On the other hand, what about enrolling all the eligible subjects without considering their motivation? This might boost the enrollment rate, but it can lead to biased results on account of large proportions of drop-outs. Our experience suggests that participants do not change their mind depending on the allocation group (intervention or control). There is no single answer to sort out the short blanket syndrome.

Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Individual informed consent from all participants is required for most randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, some exceptions-for example, emergency research-are widely accepted.

METHODS

The literature on various approaches to randomization without consent (RWOC) has never been systematically reviewed. Our goal was to provide a survey and narrative synthesis of published proposals for RWOC. We focused on proposals to randomize at least some participants in a study without first obtaining consent to randomization. This definition included studies that omitted informed consent entirely, omitted informed consent for selected patients (e.g., the control group), obtained informed consent to research but not to randomization, or only obtained informed consent to randomization after random assignment had already occurred. It omitted oral and staged consent processes that still obtain consent to randomization from all participants before randomization occurs.

RESULTS

We identified ten different proposals for RWOC: two variants of cluster randomization, two variants of the Zelen design, consent to postponed information, two-stage randomized consent, cohort multiple RCT, emergency research, prompted optional randomization trials, and low-risk pragmatic RCTs without consent.

CONCLUSION

Of all designs discussed here, only cluster randomized designs and emergency research are routinely used, with the justification that informed consent is infeasible in those settings. Other designs have raised concerns that they do not appropriately respect patient autonomy. Recent proposals have emphasized the importance for RWOC of demonstrating such respect through systematic patient engagement, transparency, and accountability, potentially in the context of learning health care systems.

A novel use of the Spine Tango registry to evaluate selection bias in patient recruitment into clinical studies: an analysis of patients participating in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)

PURPOSE

Patients enrolled in clinical studies typically represent a sub-set of all who are eligible, and selection bias may compromise the generalizability of the findings. Using Registry data, we evaluated whether surgical patients recruited by one of the referring centres into the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS; a large-scale, multicentre prospective observational study to determine the probability of clinical benefit after surgery) differed in any significant way from those who were eligible but not enrolled.

METHODS

Data were extracted for all patients with lumbar spinal stenosis registered in our in-house database (interfaced to Eurospine's Spine Tango Registry) from 2011 to 2013. Patient records and imaging were evaluated in relation to the admission criteria for LSOS to identify those who would have been eligible for participation but were not enrolled (non-LSOS). The Tango surgery data and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) data at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery were analysed to evaluate the factors associated with LSOS enrolment or not.

RESULTS

514 potentially eligible patients were identified, of which 94 (18%) were enrolled into LSOS (range 2-48% for the 6 spine surgeons involved in recruiting patients) and 420 (82%) were not; the vast majority of the latter were due to non-referral to the study by the surgeon, with only 5% actually refusing participation. There was no significant difference in gender, age, BMI, smoking status, or ASA score between the two groups (p ≥ 0.18). Baseline COMI was significantly (p = 0.002) worse in the non-LSOS group (7.4 ± 1.9) than the LSOS group (6.7 ± 1.9). There were no significant group differences in any Tango surgery parameters (additional spine patholothegies, operation time, blood loss, complications, etc.) although significantly more patients in the non-LSOS group had a fusion procedure (38 vs 18% in LSOS; p = 0.0004). Postoperatively, neither the COMI nor its subdomain scores differed significantly between the groups (p > 0.05). Multiple logistic regression revealed that worse baseline COMI (p = 0.021), surgeon (p = 0.003), and having fusion (p = 0.014) predicted non-enrolment in LSOS.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of eligible patients were not enrolled in the study. Non-enrolment was explained in part by the specific surgeon, worse baseline COMI status, and having a fusion. The findings may reflect a tendency of the referring surgeon not to overburden more disabled patients and those undergoing more extensive surgery with the commitments of a study. Beyond these factors, non-enrolment appeared to be somewhat arbitrary, and was likely related to surgeon forgetfulness, time constraints, and administrative errors. Researchers should be aware of potential selection bias in their clinical studies, measure it (where possible) and discuss its implications for the interpretation of the study's findings.

What factors influence successful recruitment of siblings of individuals with first episode psychosis to e-health interventions? A qualitative study

Background

Recruitment to clinical research studies can prove complex. This is particularly true of mental health research, given factors such as confidentiality, capacity and consent, or when attempting to recruit family members as opposed to service users themselves.

Aim

This study investigated the challenges experienced and strategies employed in the recruitment of siblings of people with first episode psychosis using Early Intervention in Psychosis Services (EIPS) in England.

Methods

As part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an e‐health intervention for siblings, we conducted a process evaluation study whereby semistructured interview was undertaken with clinical and research staff involved in recruitment of siblings. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Twelve participants from six EIPS were interviewed. Data analysis revealed seven key themes: (i) limited comprehensive family data available; (ii) data governance and consent issues; (iii) organizational factors; (iv) convoluted recruitment methods; (v) concerns about service users' opinions; (vi) fluidity in siblings' needs and expectations; and (vii) strategies to enhance recruitment.

Conclusions

Recruitment challenges identified in this study concerned administrative, organizational, process and attitudinal issues. These are similar to other studies recruiting mental health service users as well as family members. Failure to recruit to target implies that studies are underpowered to detect potential statistically or clinically meaningful changes. Future studies should establish how best to enhance family inclusiveness in clinical practice and research.

Ethical challenges in conducting clinical research in lung cancer

The article examines ethical challenges that arise with clinical lung cancer research focusing on design, recruitment, conduct and dissemination.

DESIGN

problems related to equipoise can arise in lung cancer studies. Equipoise is an ethics precondition for RCTs and exists where there is insufficient evidence to decide which of two or more treatments is best. Difficulties arise in deciding what level of uncertainty constitutes equipoise and who should be in equipoise, for example, patients might not be even where clinicians are. Patient and public involvement (PPI) can reduce but not remove the problems. Recruitment: (I) lung cancer studies can be complex, making it difficult to obtain good quality consent. Some techniques can help, such as continuous consent. But researchers should not expect consent to be the sole protection for participants' welfare. This protection is primarily done elsewhere in the research process, for example, in ethics review; (II) the problem of desperate volunteers: some patients only consent to a trial because it gives them a 50/50 option of the treatment they want and can be disappointed or upset if randomised to the other arm. This is not necessarily unfair, given clinical equipoise. However, it should be avoided where possible, for example, by using alternative trial designs; (III) the so-called problem of therapeutic misconception: this is the idea that patients are mistaken if they enter trials believing this to be in their clinical best interest. We argue the problem is misconceived and relates only to certain health systems. Conduct: lung cancer trials face standard ethical challenges with regard to trial conduct. PPI could be used in decisions about criteria for stopping rules.

DISSEMINATION

as in other trial areas, it is important that all results, including negative ones, are reported. We argue also that the role of PPI with regard to dissemination is currently under-developed.

Development of an online clinical trial recruitment portal for the NIHR mental health BRC

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

In order to test whether or not new treatments for mental health disorders help patients get better according to clinician/patient selected criteria, it is often necessary to test them on patients under safe, carefully monitored conditions called clinical trials. It is necessary to find enough patients to take part in a clinical trial so that the results of the trial are reliable. The NIHR Mental Health BRC (here after abbreviated to BRC) is a centre for research in London which seeks to find out better ways to treat patients with mental health difficulties. The BRC has experienced problems trying to find sufficient numbers of patients to participate in its clinical trials as it appears that insufficient patients were being told by their doctor about opportunities to participate in clinical research. In order to help the BRC find enough patients to volunteer to take part in its clinical trials, the author (a patient representative) of this article and a clinical researcher in the nearby Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN) decided to work together to try to find the best way to let patients know more about what clinical trials are, what it is like to take part in them and which clinical trials are seeking patients to take part. The author and researcher used a report by the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) on patient difficulties in finding clinical trials to take part in, and the recommendations it made, to guide them in building a website to give such patients the information on clinical trials they wanted (including clinical trials run by the BRC). The author and researcher also asked patients, carers, staff at the IoPPN and BRC what they thought of the website and how to make it better. They used the ideas, suggestions and criticisms to improve the website. The author and researcher also asked mental health charities and research organisations if they would advertise the final version of this website on their own websites; many said yes, they would. The manager of the BRC on reviewing the website, agreed that a final version of the website with the NIHR Mental Health BRC logo would be paid for and will form part of a new main website for the BRC in early 2016.

ᅟ

Public & patient recruitment to clinical trials is viewed as one of the main barriers to the implementation of clinical trials. This difficulty is often attributed to the working culture of the NHS, rapid turnover of staff and patients and poor-gatekeeping in referring patients to suitable clinical trials. In response to the recruitment difficulties experienced by the Psychosis Studies Clinical Academic Group at the NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre, Denmark Hill, London, a member of the Office of Psychosis Studies at King's College London and a member (the author) of the King's Clinical Trials Unit, King's College London developed an initiative to create an online clinical trial recruitment portal/information hub for the NIHR Mental Health BRC. The primary purpose of this initiative being to promote patient and public awareness of and interest in participating in clinical trials.