Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Researchers' experiences of the design and conduct challenges associated with parallel-group cluster-randomised trials and views on a novel open-cohort design

BACKGROUND

Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs.

AIM

To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: a) Design and conduct challenges with established parallel-group CRT designs,b) Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers to implementation of open-cohort CRTs,c) Methods for minimising, and investigating the impact of, bias in open-cohort CRTs.

METHODS

Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

Effectiveness of an Advance Care Planning Intervention in Adults Receiving Dialysis and Their Families: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Evidence of effectiveness of advance care planning (ACP) strategies for patients receiving dialysis and their families is needed.

Objectives

To test the effectiveness of an ACP intervention to prepare patients and their surrogates for end-of-life (EOL) decision-making and to improve surrogate bereavement outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial, An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of SPIRIT (Sharing Patients' Illness Representations to Increase Trust) in ESRD, was conducted from December 2017 to March 2023 and included 42 dialysis clinics in 5 US states (Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) randomized to provide intervention or usual care. Recruitment was from February 15, 2018, to January 31, 2022, and patient-surrogate dyads were followed up for 21 months (until January 17, 2023) or until patient death.

Intervention

Each clinic selected 1 or 2 health care workers (eg, nurse practitioner, registered nurse, or social worker) to conduct 45- to 60-minute ACP discussions with dyads in the clinic or remotely. After March 13, 2020 (commencement of the COVID-19 emergency declaration), all discussions were conducted remotely. An ACP summary was placed in patients' medical records.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary, 2-week preparedness outcomes were dyad congruence on EOL goals of care, patient decisional conflict, surrogate decision-making confidence, and a composite of dyad congruence and surrogate decision-making confidence. Secondary bereavement outcomes were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic distress 3 months after patient death. To adjust for COVID-19 pandemic effects on bereavement outcomes, a variable to indicate the timing of baseline and 3-month assessment relative to the COVID-19 emergency declaration was created.

Results

Of the 426 dyads enrolled, 231 were in the intervention clinics, and 195 were in the control clinics. Among all dyads, the mean (SD) patient age was 61.9 (12.7) years, and the mean (SD) surrogate age was 53.7 (15.4) years. At 2 weeks, after adjusting for baseline values, dyad congruence (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.12-2.31; P = .001), decisional conflict scores (β, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07; P < .001), and the composite (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.06-2.34; P = .03) were higher in the intervention group than in the control group. Surrogate decision-making confidence was similar between groups (β, 0.06; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.13; P = .12). Among 77 bereaved surrogates, after adjusting for baseline values and assessment timing, intervention group anxiety was lower than control group anxiety (β, -1.55; 95% CI, -3.08 to -0.01; P = .05); however, depression (β, -0.18; 95% CI, -2.09 to 1.73; P = .84) and posttraumatic distress (β, -0.96; 95% CI, -7.39 to 5.46; P = .75) were similar.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, the ACP intervention implemented by health care workers at dialysis centers improved preparation for EOL decision-making but showed mixed effectiveness on bereavement outcomes. The ACP intervention implemented in dialysis centers may be an effective strategy to the dyad preparation for end-of-life care as opposed to the current focus on advance directives.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03138564.

Key considerations for designing, conducting and analysing a cluster randomized trial

Not only do cluster randomized trials require a larger sample size than individually randomized trials, they also face many additional complexities. The potential for contamination is the most commonly used justification for using cluster randomization, but the risk of contamination should be carefully weighed against the more serious problem of questionable scientific validity in settings with post-randomization identification or recruitment of participants unblinded to the treatment allocation. In this paper we provide some simple guidelines to help researchers conduct cluster trials in a way that minimizes potential biases and maximizes statistical efficiency. The overarching theme of this guidance is that methods that apply to individually randomized trials rarely apply to cluster randomized trials. We recommend that cluster randomization be only used when necessary-balancing the benefits of cluster randomization with its increased risks of bias and increased sample size. Researchers should also randomize at the lowest possible level-balancing the risks of contamination with ensuring an adequate number of randomization units-as well as exploring other options for statistically efficient designs. Clustering should always be allowed for in the sample size calculation; and the use of restricted randomization (and adjustment in the analysis for covariates used in the randomization) should be considered. Where possible, participants should be recruited before randomizing clusters and, when recruiting (or identifying) participants post-randomization, recruiters should be masked to the allocation. In the analysis, the target of inference should align with the research question, and adjustment for clustering and small sample corrections should be used when the trial includes less than about 40 clusters.

A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices

Introduction

Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA (n = 1284) who have trials open to older adults or focus on Alzheimer's disease. We randomized participants to receive information on ECPs via receiving a toolkit with a social media push (intervention) or receiving an online learning module (active control). Participants completed a baseline survey and a follow-up survey after 1 year. A subset of participants was interviewed (n = 43).

Results

Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully.

Conclusions

Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type.

RESULTS

From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.