Improving the efficiency of trials using innovative pilot designs: the next phase in the conduct and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies

Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping bibliometric review of recently published preliminary behavioral-focused intervention studies to (1) examine the prevalence of GCFR usage and (2) determine the associations between GCFR usage and reporting feasibility-related characteristics.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions published between 2018 and 2020. Studies were limited to the top 25 journals publishing behavioral-focused interventions, text mined to identify usage of GCFRs, and categorized as either not citing GCFRs or citing ≥ 2 GCFRs (Citers). A random sample of non-Citers was text mined to identify studies which cited other preliminary studies that cited GCFRs (Indirect Citers) and those that did not (Never Citers). The presence/absence of feasibility-related characteristics was compared between Citers, Indirect Citers, and Never Citers via univariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Studies (n = 4143) were identified, and 1316 were text mined to identify GCFR usage (n = 167 Citers). A random sample of 200 studies not citing a GCFR were selected and categorized into Indirect Citers (n = 71) and Never Citers (n = 129). Compared to Never Citers, Citers had higher odds of reporting retention, acceptability, adverse events, compliance, cost, data collection feasibility, and treatment fidelity (ORrange = 2.62-14.15, p < 0.005). Citers also had higher odds of mentioning feasibility in purpose statements, providing progression criteria, framing feasibility as the primary outcome, and mentioning feasibility in conclusions (ORrange = 6.31-17.04, p < 0.005) and lower odds of mentioning efficacy in purpose statements, testing for efficacy, mentioning efficacy in conclusions, and suggesting future testing (ORrange = 0.13-0.54, p < 0.05). Indirect Citers had higher odds of reporting acceptability and treatment fidelity (ORrange = 2.12-2.39, p < 0.05) but lower odds of testing for efficacy (OR = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to Never Citers.

CONCLUSION

The citation of GCFRs is associated with greater reporting of feasibility-related characteristics in preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions. Researchers are encouraged to use and cite literature that provides guidance on design, implementation, analysis, and reporting to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting for preliminary studies.

Therapeutic strategies to address monkeypox

Introduction

Monkeypox is a viral zoonosis, with symptoms similar to those seen in smallpox patients, although the clinical presentation may be less severe. Until recently, human monkeypox infection was rare, and primarily occurred in Central and West Africa.

Areas covered

An international outbreak began in May 2022, and monkeypox has now been detected on every continent except Antarctica. The first recognized case from the current outbreak was confirmed in the United Kingdom on 6 May 2022, in an adult with travel links to Nigeria, but it has been suggested that cases had been spreading in Europe for months. On 23 July 2022 the Director-General of the World Health Organization declared the monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.

Expert opinion

There are no treatments specifically for monkeypox virus infections. However, monkeypox and smallpox viruses are genetically similar, and therapeutics developed to combat smallpox may be used to treat monkeypox. This manuscripts reviews what is known about these potential treatments, including tecovirimat and brincidofovir, based on a literature search of PubMed through 9 August 2022, and explores how these therapeutics may be used in the future to address the expanding monkeypox pandemic.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a single-arm, pragmatic, pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for U.S. veterans with chronic low back pain

Background

Over 25% of veterans seeking care at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities have chronic low back pain (LBP), with high rates of mental health comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection to prepare for the subsequent randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for pain management of veterans with chronic low back pain. The secondary objectives were to estimate effect sizes and variability of the primary outcome and choose secondary outcomes for the full-scale trial.

Methods

This single-arm pilot trial enrolled 40 veterans with chronic LBP at one Veterans Health Administration facility for a 10-week course of pragmatic multimodal chiropractic care. Recruitment was by (1) provider referral, (2) invitational letter from the electronic health record pre-screening, and (3) standard direct recruitment. We administered patient-reported outcome assessments through an email link to REDCap, an electronic data capture platform, at baseline and 5 additional timepoints. Retention was tracked through adherence to the treatment plan and completion rates of outcome assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics and outcome variables.

Results

We screened 91 veterans over 6 months to enroll our goal of 40 participants. Seventy percent were recruited through provider referrals. Mean age (range) was 53 (22–79) years and 23% were female; 95% had mental health comorbidities. The mean number of chiropractic visits was 4.5 (1–7). Participants adhered to their treatment plan, with exception of 3 who attended only their first visit. All participants completed assessments at the in-person baseline visit and 80% at the week 10 final endpoint. We had no issues administering assessments via REDCap. We observed clinically important improvements on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [mean change (SD): 3.6 (6.1)] and on PROMIS® pain interference [mean change (SD): 3.6 (5.6)], which will be our primary and key secondary outcome, respectively, for the full-scale trial.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection for conducting a pragmatic clinical trial of chiropractic care in a Veterans Health Administration facility. Using the pilot data and lessons learned, we modified and refined a protocol for a full-scale, multisite, pragmatic, National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for veterans with chronic LBP that began recruitment in February 2021.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01008-0.

Clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of virtual visits and digital approaches

Clinical trials are a fundamental tool in evaluating the safety and efficacy of new drugs, medical devices, and health system interventions. Clinical trial visits generally involve eligibility assessment, enrollment, intervention administration, data collection, and follow-up, with many of these steps performed during face-to-face visits between participants and the investigative team. Social distancing, which emerged as one of the mainstay strategies for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, has presented a challenge to the traditional model of clinical trial conduct, causing many research teams to halt all in-person contacts except for life-saving research. Nonetheless, clinical research has continued during the pandemic because study teams adapted quickly, turning to virtual visits and other similar methods to complete critical research activities. The purpose of this special communication is to document this rapid transition to virtual methodologies at Clinical and Translational Science Awards hubs and highlight important considerations for future development. Looking beyond the pandemic, we envision that a hybrid approach, which implements remote activities when feasible but also maintains in-person activities as necessary, will be adopted more widely for clinical trials. There will always be a need for in-person aspects of clinical research, but future study designs will need to incorporate remote capabilities.

The Family Nurse Partnership to reduce maltreatment and improve child health and development in young children: the BB:2–6 routine data-linkage follow-up to earlier RCT

Background

The short-term effectiveness (to 24 months post partum) of a preventative home-visiting intervention, the Family Nurse Partnership, was previously assessed in the Building Blocks trial (BB:0–2).

Objectives

The objectives were to establish the medium-term effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership in reducing maltreatment and improving maternal health (second pregnancies) and child health, developmental and educational outcomes (e.g. early educational attendance, school readiness); to explore effect moderators and mediators; and to describe the costs of enhancing usually provided health and social care with the Family Nurse Partnership.

Design

Children and their mothers from an existing trial cohort were followed up using routine data until the child was 7 years of age.

Setting

This study was set in 18 partnerships between local authorities and health-care organisations in England.

Participants

The participants were mothers [and their firstborn child(ren)] recruited as pregnant women aged ≤ 19 years, in local authority Family Nurse Partnership catchment areas, at < 25 weeks’ gestation, able to provide consent and able to converse in English. Participants mandatorily withdrawn (e.g. owing to miscarriage) from the BB:0–2 trial were excluded.

Interventions

The intervention comprised up to a maximum of 64 home visits by specially trained family nurses from early pregnancy until the firstborn child was 2 years of age, plus usually provided health and social care support. The comparator was usual care alone.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was child-in-need status recorded at any time during follow-up. The secondary outcomes were as follows: (1) referral to social services, child protection registration (plan), child-in-need categorisation, looked-after status, recorded injuries and ingestions at any time during follow-up; (2) early child care and educational attendance, school readiness (Early Years Foundation Stage Profile score) and attainment at Key Stage 1; and (3) health-care costs.

Data sources

The following data sources were used: maternally reported baseline and follow-up data (BB:0–2), Hospital Episode Statistics data (NHS Digital), social care and educational data (National Pupil Database) and abortions data (Department of Health and Social Care).

Results

There were no differences between study arms in the rates of referral to social services, being registered as a child in need, receiving child protection plans, entering care or timing of first referral for children subsequently assessed as in need. There were no differences between study arms in rates of hospital emergency attendance, admission for injuries or ingestions, or in duration of stay for admitted children. Children in the Family Nurse Partnership arm were more likely to achieve a good level of development at reception age (school readiness), an effect strengthened when adjusting for birth month. Differences at Key Stage 1 were not statistically different, but, after adjusting for birth month, children in the Family Nurse Partnership arm were more likely to reach the expected standard in reading. Programme effects were greater for boys (Key Stage 1: writing); children of younger mothers (Key Stage 1: writing, Key Stage 1: mathematics); and children of mothers not in employment, education or training at study baseline (Key Stage 1: writing). There were no differences between families who were part of the Family Nurse Partnership and those who were not for any other outcome. The differences between study arms in resource use and costs were negligible.

Limitations

The outcomes are constrained to those available from routine sources.

Conclusions

There is no observable benefit of the programme for maltreatment or maternal outcomes, but it does generate advantages in school readiness and attainment at Key Stage 1.

Future work

The trajectory of longer-term programme benefits should be mapped using routine and participant-reported measures.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey

Background

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) involves an intricate interaction between patient, clinician and technology. To improve our understanding of this complex intervention and to inform future trials, this survey aimed to examine clinician attitudes, beliefs and barriers to NAVA use in critically ill adults within an institution with significant NAVA experience.

Methods

A survey of nurses, doctors and physiotherapists in four Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of one UK university-affiliated hospital (75 NAVA equipped beds). The survey consisted of 39 mixed open and structured questions. The hospital had 8 years of NAVA experience prior to the survey.

Results

Of 466 distributed questionnaires, 301 (64.6%) were returned from 236 nurses (78.4%), 53 doctors (17.6%) and 12 physiotherapists (4.0%). Overall, 207/294 (70.4%) reported clinical experience. Most agreed that NAVA was safe (136/177, 76.8%) and clinically effective (99/176, 56.3%) and most perceived ‘improved synchrony’, ‘improved comfort’ and ‘monitoring the diaphragm’ to be key advantages of NAVA. ‘Technical issues’ (129/189, 68.3%) and ‘NAVA signal problems’ (94/180, 52.2%) were the most cited clinical disadvantage and cause of mode cross-over to Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), respectively. Most perceived NAVA to be more difficult to use than PSV (105/174, 60.3%), although results were mixed when compared across different tasks. More participants preferred PSV to NAVA for initiating ventilator weaning (93/171 (54.4%) vs 29/171 (17.0%)). A key barrier to use and a consistent theme throughout was ‘low confidence’ in relation to NAVA use.

Conclusions

In addition to broad clinician support for NAVA, this survey describes technical concerns, low confidence and a perception of difficulty above that associated with PSV. In this context, high-quality training and usage algorithms are critically important to the design and of future trials, to clinician acceptance and to the clinical implementation and future success of NAVA.

Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials

BACKGROUND

Implementation trials aim to test the effects of implementation strategies on the adoption, integration or uptake of an evidence-based intervention within organisations or settings. Feasibility and pilot studies can assist with building and testing effective implementation strategies by helping to address uncertainties around design and methods, assessing potential implementation strategy effects and identifying potential causal mechanisms. This paper aims to provide broad guidance for the conduct of feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials.

METHODS

We convened a group with a mutual interest in the use of feasibility and pilot trials in implementation science including implementation and behavioural science experts and public health researchers. We conducted a literature review to identify existing recommendations for feasibility and pilot studies, as well as publications describing formative processes for implementation trials. In the absence of previous explicit guidance for the conduct of feasibility or pilot implementation trials specifically, we used the effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial design typology proposed by Curran and colleagues as a framework for conceptualising the application of feasibility and pilot testing of implementation interventions. We discuss and offer guidance regarding the aims, methods, design, measures, progression criteria and reporting for implementation feasibility and pilot studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a resource for those undertaking preliminary work to enrich and inform larger scale implementation trials.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV).

METHODS

An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary-≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality.

RESULTS

In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0-97.1%) and 100% (100-100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3-80.0%) and 100% (89.0-100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0-11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826890. Registered 9 April 2013.

The rise of hospitalists: an opportunity for infectious diseases investigators

INTRODUCTION

Despite the essential role played by infectious diseases specialists in patient care, public health, cost-containment, and biomedical research, the field has a substantially higher percentage of vacant positions than other medicine sub-specialties. While much has been written about what this disturbing trend means for patient care, comparatively little attention has been focused on the dire implications for clinical research and the development of novel anti-infective therapy. Areas covered: We examine the ways that hospitalists and infectious disease specialists might collaborate to study emerging diagnostic platforms, novel antimicrobial agents, and strengthen antimicrobial stewardship programs to improve the delivery of high-quality health care. Through the use of PubMed, the manuscript reviews existing collaborations as well as those that might develop in the years to come. Expert commentary: In this paper, we propose potential strategies to confront this emerging problem, focusing on novel collaborations with the hospitalist - the specialist in inpatient medicine - to bolster the pipeline of funding for clinical infectious diseases investigators.