Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial)

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent forms (ICFs) for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) can be onerous and lengthy. The process has the potential to overwhelm patients with information, leading them to miss elements of the study that are critical for an informed decision. Specifically, overly long and complicated ICFs have the potential to increase barriers to trial participation for patients with mild cognitive impairment, those who do not speak English as a first language or among those with lower medical literacy. In turn, this can influence trial recruitment, completion and external validity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SIMPLY-SNAP is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel-group superiority RCT, nested within a larger trial, the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial. We will randomise potentially eligible participants of the SNAP trial 1:1 to a full-length ICF or a SIMPlified LaYered (SIMPLY) consent process where basic information is summarised with embedded hyperlinks to supplemental information and videos. The primary outcome is recruitment into the SNAP trial. Secondary outcomes include patient understanding of the clinical trial, patient and research staff satisfaction with the consent process, and time taken for consent. As an exploratory outcome, we will also compare measures of diversity (eg, gender, ethnicity), according to the consent process randomised to. The planned sample size will be 346 participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics review board (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Research Ethics Board) at sites in Ontario. We will disseminate study results via the SNAP trial group and other collaborating clinical trial networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06168474; www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov).

Time required to initiate a clinical trial in Canada at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational research-in-motion study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT.

METHODS

We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation.

RESULTS

All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 d, range 0-216 d). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals.

INTERPRETATION

The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency.

Non-inferiority trial of a shorter (7 days) compared with a longer (14 days) duration of antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary sepsis, measured by microbiological success after the completion of therapy: a substudy protocol for the Bacteraemia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The BALANCE study is a randomised clinical trial (3626 participants) designed to assess the non-inferiority of 7 days (short-course) antibiotic therapy compared with 14 days of therapy for bacteraemia using the pragmatic endpoint of 90-day survival. Based on pilot study data, approximately 30% of enrolees will have a urinary tract infection (UTI) as the source of bacteraemia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to assess the non-inferiority of short-course antibiotic therapy for patients with bacteraemia UTIs.Participating sites in four countries will be invited to join this substudy. All participants of this substudy will be enrolled in the main BALANCE study. The intervention will be assigned and treatment administered as specified in the main protocol.We will include participants in this substudy if the probable source of their infection is a UTI, as judged by the site principal investigator, and they have a urine microscopy and culture indicative of a UTI. Participants will be excluded if they have an ileal loop, vesicoureteric reflux or suspected or confirmed prostatitis.The primary outcome is the absence of a positive culture on a test-of-cure urine sample collected 6-12 days after cessation of antimicrobials, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes include the clinical resolution of infection symptoms at test-of-cure.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved in conjunction with the main BALANCE study through the relevant ethics review process at each participating site. We will disseminate the results through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Association for Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Canada Clinical Research Network (AMMI Canada CRN) and other collaborators.

UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER

U1111-1256-0874.

MAIN BALANCE TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03005145.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian Clinical Trial Register: ACTRN12620001108909.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background

Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings.

Methods

Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries.

Results

Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population.

Conclusions

Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome.

Funding

Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality

Objectives

We used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians’ willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children.

Methods

We surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results.

Results

There were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% (P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8–14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment.

Conclusions

Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature.

Highlights

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial

Background:

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.

Methods:

We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.

Results:

Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups.

Interpretation:

Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care in the first phase of the pandemic in Canada: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection.

METHODS

This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay.

RESULTS

Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09).

INTERPRETATION

Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital.

Case conferences for infective endocarditis: A quality improvement initiative

Background

A multidisciplinary approach has been recommended for the management of patients with infective endocarditis. We evaluated the impact of multidisciplinary case conferences on morbidity, mortality, and quality of care for these patients.

Methods

We conducted a quasi-experimental study of consecutive patients admitted for infective endocarditis before (2013/10/1–2015/10/12, n = 97) and after (2015/10/13–2017/11/30, n = 80) implementation of case conferences to discuss medical and surgical management. These occurred as face-to-face discussions or electronically (for non-complex patients), and included physicians from cardiac surgery, cardiology, critical care, infectious diseases and neurology. We assessed process-of-care and clinical outcomes, with the primary outcome being complications up to 90 days after hospital discharge.

Results

A case conference was held for 80/80 (100%) of patients in the post-intervention group. After the intervention, more patients received inpatient cardiology assessment (81.3% [post-intervention] vs. 63.9% [pre-intervention], p = 0.01), and more patients with definite infective endocarditis underwent cardiac surgery treatment (44.6% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.007). All pre-intervention and post-intervention patients received guideline-concordant antimicrobial therapy. There was no difference in rates of complications (40.0% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.13) or mortality up to 90 days after hospital discharge (26.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.20). In multivariable analyses, the intervention was not associated with differences in mortality (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 0.88–3.99) or a composite measure of complications and mortality (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.46–1.58).

Conclusion

We successfully implemented a standardized multidisciplinary case conference protocol for patients with infective endocarditis. This intervention had no detectable effect on complications or mortality.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism and practice of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized cirrhotic patients

Background

Cirrhotic patients are characterized by a decreased synthesis of coagulation and anticoagulation factors. The coagulopathy of cirrhotic patients is considered to be auto-anticoagulation. Our aim was to determine the incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and examine the practice of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis among hospitalized cirrhotic patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary teaching hospital. We included all adult patients admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of liver cirrhosis from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. We grouped our cohort patients in two groups, cirrhotic patients without VTE and cirrhotic with VTE.

Results

Over one year, we included 226 cirrhotic patients, and the characteristics of both groups were similar regarding their clinical and laboratory parameters and their outcomes. Six patients (2.7%) developed VTE, and all of the VTEs were DVT. Hepatitis C was the most common (51%) underlying cause of liver cirrhosis, followed by hepatitis B (22%); 76% of the cirrhotic patients received neither pharmacological nor mechanical DVT prophylaxis.

Conclusion

Cirrhotic patients are at risk for developing VTE. The utilization of DVT prophylaxis was suboptimal.