What are the roles and valued attributes of a Trial Steering Committee? Ethnographic study of eight clinical trials facing challenges

Implementation of a batched stepped wedge trial evaluating a quality improvement intervention for surgical teams to reduce anastomotic leak after right colectomy

BACKGROUND

Large-scale quality improvement interventions demand robust trial designs with flexibility for delivery in different contexts, particularly during a pandemic. We describe innovative features of a batched stepped wedge trial, ESCP sAfe Anastomosis proGramme in CoLorectal SurgEry (EAGLE), intended to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy, and reflect on lessons learned about the implementation of quality improvement programmes on an international scale.

METHODS

Surgical units were recruited and randomised in batches to receive a hospital-level education intervention designed to reduce anastomotic leak, either before, during, or following data collection. All consecutive patients undergoing right colectomy were included. Online learning, patient risk stratification and an in-theatre checklist constituted the intervention. The study was powered to detect an absolute risk reduction of anastomotic leak from 8.1 to 5.6%. Statistical efficiency was optimised using an incomplete stepped wedge trial design and study batches analysed separately then meta-analysed to calculate the intervention effect. An established collaborative group helped nurture strong working relationships between units/countries and a prospectively designed process evaluation will enable evaluation of both the intervention and its implementation.

RESULTS

The batched trial design allowed sequential entry of clusters, targeted research training and proved to be robust to pandemic interruptions. Staggered start times in the incomplete stepped wedge design with long lead-in times can reduce motivation and engagement and require careful administration.

CONCLUSION

EAGLE's robust but flexible study design allowed completion of the study across globally distributed geographical locations in spite of the pandemic. The primary outcome analysed in conjunction with the process evaluation will ensure a rich understanding of the intervention and the effects of the study design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio IRAS ID: 272,250. Health Research Authority approval 18 October 2019.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, identifier NCT04270721, protocol ID RG_19196.

Governance of adaptive platform trials

Adaptive Clinical Trials (ACT) differ from conventional clinical trials because they permit continual modifications to key components of trial design during the trial. ACTs have grown in prevalence in recent years, with Adaptive Platform Trials (APTs), in particular, having demonstrated their significant scientific, clinical, and public health utility in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been a steady increase in the number of regulations and guidelines aimed at guiding the conduct of clinical trials. However, despite the potential of APTs to expedite the testing of new interventions in emergency situations, there is a relative dearth of published literature on why and how such trials should be governed. This work attempts to address this knowledge gap.

Temporal Trends and Clinical Trial Characteristics Associated With the Inclusion of Women in Heart Failure Trial Steering Committees: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Trial steering committees (TSCs) steer the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We examined the gender composition of TSCs in impactful heart failure RCTs and explored whether trial leadership by a woman was independently associated with the inclusion of women in TSCs.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for heart failure RCTs published in journals with impact factor ≥10 between January 2000 and May 2019. We used the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to assess temporal trends and multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with TSC inclusion of women.

RESULTS

Of 403 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, 127 (31.5%) reported having a TSC but 20 of these (15.7%) did not identify members. Among 107 TSCs that listed members, 56 (52.3%) included women and 6 of these (10.7%) restricted women members to the RCT leaders. Of 1213 TSC members, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.4%-13.0%) were women, with no change in temporal trends (P=0.55). Women had greater odds of TSC inclusion in RCTs led by women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.05-8.72], P=0.042); this association was nonsignificant when analysis excluded TSCs that restricted women to the RCT leaders (adjusted odds ratio 1.46 [95% CI, 0.43-4.91], P=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Women were included in 52.3% of TSCs and represented 11.1% of TSC members in 107 heart failure RCTs, with no change in trends since 2000. RCTs led by women had higher adjusted odds of including women in TSCs, partly due to the self-inclusion of RCT leaders in TSCs.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

Community interventions to prevent violence against women and girls in informal settlements in Mumbai: the SNEHA-TARA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In a cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai slums, we will test the effects on the prevalence of violence against women and girls of community mobilisation through groups and individual volunteers. One in three women in India has survived physical or sexual violence, making it a major public health burden. Reviews recommend community mobilisation to address violence, but trial evidence is limited.

METHODS

Guided by a theory of change, we will compare 24 areas receiving support services, community group, and volunteer activities with 24 areas receiving support services only. These community mobilisation activities will be evaluated through a follow-up survey after 3 years. Primary outcomes will be prevalence in the preceding year of physical or sexual domestic violence, and prevalence of emotional or economic domestic violence, control, or neglect against women 15-49 years old. Secondary outcomes will describe disclosure of violence to support services, community tolerance of violence against women and girls, prevalence of non-partner sexual violence, and mental health and wellbeing. Intermediate theory-based outcomes will include bystander intervention, identification of and support for survivors of violence, changes described in programme participants, and changes in communities.

DISCUSSION

Systematic reviews of interventions to prevent violence against women and girls suggest that community mobilisation is a promising population-based intervention. Already implemented in other areas, our intervention has been developed over 16 years of programmatic experience and 2 years of formative research. Backed by public engagement and advocacy, our vision is of a replicable community-led intervention to address the public health burden of violence against women and girls.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled Trials Registry of India, CTRI/2018/02/012047. Registered on 21 February 2018. ISRCTN, ISRCTN84502355. Registered on 22 February 2018.

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

Background/aims:

Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage.

Methods:

We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs.

Results:

In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan.

Conclusion:

A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Post-marketing studies of pharmaceutical opioid abuse-deterrent formulations: a framework for research design and reporting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Opioid formulations with properties to deter abuse (abuse-deterrent formulations; ADFs) have been developed as one response to the prescription opioid 'epidemic'. As for all medicines, ADFs undergo evaluation of safety and efficacy prior to registration for marketing. However, reduced extra-medical use (the primary intended outcome of ADFs and reason for their introduction) can only be established in post-marketing observational studies, comparing them to opioid formulations without abuse-deterrent properties. This has implications for various features of study design and analysis. We discuss proposals for the design, conduct, governance and reporting of post-marketing studies on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical and opioid ADFs.

METHODS

A review of current guidance documents, public work-shops and forums and our own experience with post-marketing studies of ADFs.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Research questions for post-marketing studies on ADFs of opioids should reasonably be framed around detecting any probable intended or unintended clinical and/or meaningful changes in specific aspects of extra-medical use (e.g. injection use) and harms. Outcomes reported by prevalence and frequency of occurrence and disaggregated by specific product and route of administration can illustrate the magnitude of ADF impact. We argue that a multi-faceted approach is required, using data from both general population and sentinel high-risk cohorts and from primary and secondary data sources. The comparator (historical non-ADF formulation of that opioid, equivalent current generic or similar opioid product), duration of monitoring and analytical approach require justification and should be sufficient to add weight to conclusions of causality. To maximize transparency, we recommend explicit declarations of funding and conflict of interest, establishment of an advisory committee, publication of study protocol and access to study results.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

'We all want to succeed, but we've also got to be realistic about what is happening': an ethnographic study of relationships in trial oversight and their impact

BACKGROUND

The oversight and conduct of a randomised controlled trial involves several stakeholders, including a Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Trial Management Group (TMG), Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), funder and sponsor. We aimed to examine how the relationships between these stakeholders affect the trial oversight process and its rigour, to inform future revision of Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed the oversight processes of eight trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the trials' TSCs and TMGs, plus other relevant informants, including sponsors and funders of trials. Data were analysed thematically, and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of current oversight practices in the UK.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled key informants. Five themes are presented: (1) Collaboration within the TMG and role of the CTU; (2) Collaboration and conflict between oversight committees; (3) Priorities; (4) Communication between trial oversight groups and (5) Power and accountability. There was evidence of collaborative relationships, based on mutual respect, between CTUs, TMGs and TSCs, but also evidence of conflict. Relationships between trial oversight committees were influenced by stakeholders' priorities, both organisational and individual. Good communication following specific, recognised routes played a central role in ensuring that relationships were productive and trial oversight efficient. Participants described the possession of power over trials as a shifting political landscape, and there was lack of clarity regarding the roles and accountability of each committee, the sponsor and funder. Stakeholders' perceptions of their own power over a trial, and the power of others, influenced relationships between those involved in trial oversight.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent developments in trial design and conduct have been accompanied by changes in roles and relationships between trial oversight groups. Recognising and respecting the value of differing priorities among those involved in running trials is key to successful relationships between committees, funders and sponsors. Clarity regarding appropriate lines of communication, roles and accountability is needed. We present 10 evidence-based recommendations to inform updates to international trial guidance, particularly the Medical Research Council guidelines.

The 'Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol' (ORBITAL) framework: protocol to determine a core outcome set for efficacy and effectiveness trials of alcohol screening and brief intervention

Background

The evidence base to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions (ABI) is weakened by variation in the outcomes measured and by inconsistent reporting. The ‘Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol’ (ORBITAL) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidance for its use in future trials of ABI in a range of settings.

Methods/design

An international Special Interest Group was convened through INEBRIA (International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs) to inform the development of a COS for trials of ABI. ORBITAL will incorporate a systematic review to map outcomes used in efficacy and effectiveness trials of ABI and their measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This will support a multi-round Delphi study to prioritise outcomes. Delphi panellists will be drawn from a range of settings and stakeholder groups, and the Delphi study will also be used to determine if a single COS is relevant for all settings. A consensus meeting with key stakeholder representation will determine the final COS and associated guidance for its use in trials of ABI.

Discussion

ORBITAL will develop a COS for alcohol screening and brief intervention trials, with outcomes stratified into domains and guidance on outcome measurement instruments. The standardisation of ABI outcomes and their measurement will support the ongoing development of ABI studies and a systematic synthesis of emerging research findings. We will track the extent to which the COS delivers on this promise through an exploration of the use of the guidance in the decade following COS publication.