Novel trial strategies to enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research

Scope and Consistency of Cancer Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Introduction

Cancer is an important outcome in kidney transplantation, but the scope and consistency of how cancer is defined and reported in trials involving kidney transplant recipients has not been evaluated. This study aimed to assess the range and variability of cancer outcomes in trials involving kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched from February 2000 to July 2021 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult kidney transplant recipients, and which included cancer as a specified outcome. The definition of cancer, types of cancer (if any), timepoint(s) of measurement and method of aggregation were extracted for each cancer outcome.

Results

Of the 819 trials in kidney transplantation, only 84 (10%) included 1 or more cancer outcomes. Of these, 72 of 84 (86%) trials included cancer as a secondary outcome and 12 of 84 (14%) considered cancer as a primary outcome. The most frequent description of cancer was "malignancy" (n = 44, 43%), without reference to diagnostic criteria, histology, grade, or stage. The 2 most common cancer types were posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) (n = 20, 20%) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (n = 10, 10%). Several methods of aggregation were identified, including incidence or rate (n = 47, 46%), frequency or proportion (n = 30, 29%), and time to event (n = 5, 5%). Approximately half the cancer outcomes were measured at a single time point (n = 44, 52%).

Conclusion

Cancer is an infrequently reported outcome and is inconsistently defined in trials of kidney transplant recipients. Consistent reporting of cancer outcomes using standardized definitions would provide important information on the impact of cancer in patients after kidney transplantation.

Patient Partner Perspectives Regarding Ethically and Clinically Important Aspects of Trial Design in Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials for Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are trials in which intact groups such as hemodialysis centers or shifts are randomized to treatment or control arms. Pragmatic CRTs have been promoted as a promising trial design for nephrology research yet may also pose ethical challenges. While randomization occurs at the cluster level, the intervention and data collection may vary in a CRT, challenging the identification of research participants. Moreover, when a waiver of patient consent is granted by a research ethics committee, there is an open question as to whether and to what degree patients should be notified about ongoing research or be provided with a debrief regarding the nature and results of the trial upon completion. While empirical and conceptual research exploring ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs has begun to emerge, there has been limited discussion with patients, families, or caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To explore with patients and families with experience of hemodialysis research the challenges raised by different approaches to designing pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Specifically, their perceptions of (1) the use of a waiver of consent, (2) notification processes and information provided to participants, and (3) any other concerns about cluster randomized designs in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Focus group and interview discussions of hypothetical clinical trial designs.

SETTING

Focus groups and interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconference or telephone.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient partners in hemodialysis research, defined as patients with personal experience of dialysis or a family member who had experience supporting a patient receiving hemodialysis, who have been actively involved in discussions to advise a research team on the design, conduct, or implementation of a hemodialysis trial.

METHODS

Participants were invited to participate in focus groups or individual discussions that were audio recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Two focus groups, three individual interviews, and one interview involving a patient and family member were conducted with 17 individuals between February 2019 and May 2020. Participants expressed support for approaches that emphasized patient choice. Disclosure of patient-relevant risks and information were key themes. Both consent and notification processes served to generate trust, but bypassing patient choice was perceived as undermining this trust. Participants did not dismiss the option of a waiver of consent. They were, however, more restrictive in their views about when a waiver of consent may be acceptable. Patient partners were skeptical of claims to impracticability based on costs or the time commitments for staff.

LIMITATIONS

All participants were from Canada and had been involved in the design or conduct of a trial, limiting the degree to which results may be extrapolated.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the preferences of participants to be afforded the opportunity to decide about trial participation, we argue that investigators should thoroughly investigate approaches that allow participants to make an informed choice regarding trial participation. In keeping with the preference for autonomous choice, there remains a need to further explore how consent approaches can be designed to facilitate clinical trial conduct while meeting their ethical requirements. Finally, further work is needed to define the limited circumstances in which waivers of consent are appropriate.

Conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic-a collaborative trial network response

The unprecedented demand placed on healthcare systems from the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a reassessment of clinical trial conduct and feasibility. Consequently, the Australasian Kidney Trials Network (AKTN), an established collaborative research group known for conducting investigator-initiated global clinical trials, had to efficiently respond and adapt to the changing landscape during COVID-19. Key priorities included ensuring patient and staff safety, trial integrity and network sustainability for the kidney care community. New resources have been developed to enable a structured review and contingency plan of trial activities during the pandemic and beyond.

Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials in Hemodialysis Care: An Interview Study With Key Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer an opportunity to improve health care by answering important questions about the comparative effectiveness of treatments using a trial design that can be embedded in routine care. There is a lack of empirical research that addresses ethical issues generated by pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify stakeholder perceptions of ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs conducted in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

In-person or telephone interviews with an international group of stakeholders.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders (clinical investigators, methodologists, ethicists and research ethics committee members, and other knowledge users) who had been involved in the design or conduct of a pragmatic individual patient or cluster randomized trial in hemodialysis, or their role would require them to review and evaluate pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in-person or over the telephone and were audio-recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Interviewees were largely drawn from North America (84%) and were predominantly clinical investigators (42%). Six themes were identified in which pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis raise ethical issues: (1) patients treated with hemodialysis as a vulnerable population, (2) appropriate approaches to informed consent, (3) research burdens, (4) roles and responsibilities of gatekeepers, (5) inequities in access to research, and (6) advocacy for patient-centered research and outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were largely from North America and did not include research staff, who may have differing perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The six themes reflect concerns relating to individual rights, but also the need to consider population-level issues. To date, concerns regarding inequity of access to research and the need for patient-centered research have received less coverage than other, well-known, issues such as consent. Pragmatic CRTs offer a potential approach to address equity concerns and we suggest future ethical analyses and guidance for pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis embed equity considerations within them. We further note the potential for the co-creation of health data infrastructure with patients which would aid care but also facilitate patient-centered research. These present results will inform planned future guidance in relation to the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration is not applicable as this is a qualitative study.