When and how should we cluster and cross over: methodological and ethical issues

What type of cluster randomized trial for which setting?

The cluster randomized trial allows a randomized evaluation when it is either not possible to randomize the individual or randomizing individuals would put the trial at high risk of contamination across treatment arms. There are many variations of the cluster randomized design, including the parallel design with or without baseline measures, the cluster randomized cross-over design, the stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, and more recently-developed variants such as the batched stepped-wedge design and the staircase design. Once it has been clearly established that there is a need for cluster randomization, one ever important question is which form the cluster design should take. If a design in which time is split into multiple trial periods is to be adopted (e.g. as in a stepped-wedge), researchers must decide whether the same participants should be measured in multiple trial periods (cohort sampling); or if different participants should be measured in each period (continual recruitment or cross-sectional sampling). Here we outline the different possible options and weigh up the pros and cons of the different design choices, which revolve around statistical efficiency, study logistics and the assumptions required.

“Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy for the management of female sexual dysfunction: Literature reviews and study design of a clinical trial”

Hormone imbalance and female sexual dysfunction immensely affect perimenopausal female health and quality of life. Hormone therapy can improve female hormone deficiency, but long-term use increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a novel effective treatment to achieve long-term improvement in female general and sexual health. This study reviewed factors affecting syndromes of female sexual dysfunction and its current therapy options. Next, the authors introduced research data on mesenchymal stromal cell/mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy to treat female reproductive diseases, including Asherman’s syndrome, premature ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency, and vaginal atrophy. Among adult tissue-derived MSCs, adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs) have emerged as the most potent therapeutic cell therapy due to their abundant presence in the stromal vascular fraction of fat, high proliferation capacity, superior immunomodulation, and strong secretion profile of regenerative factors. Potential mechanisms and side effects of ASCs for the treatment of female sexual dysfunction will be discussed. Our phase I clinical trial has demonstrated the safety of autologous ASC therapy for women and men with sexual hormone deficiency. We designed the first randomized controlled crossover phase II trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of autologous ASCs to treat female sexual dysfunction in perimenopausal women. Here, we introduce the rationale, trial design, and methodology of this clinical study. Because aging and metabolic diseases negatively impact the bioactivity of adult-derived MSCs, this study will use ASCs cultured in physiological oxygen tension (5%) to cope with these challenges. A total of 130 perimenopausal women with sexual dysfunction will receive two intravenous infusions of autologous ASCs in a crossover design. The aims of the proposed study are to evaluate 1) the safety of cell infusion based on the frequency and severity of adverse events/serious adverse events during infusion and follow-up and 2) improvements in female sexual function assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Utian Quality of Life Scale (UQOL), and the levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol. In addition, cellular aging biomarkers, including plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), p16 and p21 expression in T cells and the inflammatory cytokine profile, will also be characterized. Overall, this study will provide essential insights into the effects and potential mechanisms of ASC therapy for perimenopausal women with sexual dysfunction. It also suggests direction and design strategies for future research.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials

Background:

Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent.

Methods:

A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings.

Results:

Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%–77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%–68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk.

Conclusion:

Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.