Learning the right lessons from the SUPPORT study controversy

Controls, comparator arms, and designs for critical care comparative effectiveness research: It's complicated

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research is meant to determine which commonly employed medical interventions are most beneficial, least harmful, and/or most costly in a real-world setting. While the objectives for comparative effectiveness research are clear, the field has failed to develop either a uniform definition of comparative effectiveness research or an appropriate set of recommendations to provide standards for the design of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, spurring controversy in recent years. The insertion of non-representative control and/or comparator arm subjects into critical care comparative effectiveness research trials can threaten trial subjects' safety. Nonetheless, the broader scientific community does not always appreciate the importance of defining and maintaining critical care practices during a trial, especially when vulnerable, critically ill populations are studied. Consequently, critical care comparative effectiveness research trials sometimes lack properly constructed control or active comparator arms altogether and/or suffer from the inclusion of "unusual critical care" that may adversely affect groups enrolled in one or more arms. This oversight has led to critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs that impair informed consent, confound interpretation of trial results, and increase the risk of harm for trial participants.

METHODS/EXAMPLES

We propose a novel approach to performing critical care comparative effectiveness research trials that mandates the documentation of critical care practices prior to trial initiation. We also classify the most common types of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, as well as the most frequent errors in trial design. We present examples of these design flaws drawn from past and recently published trials as well as examples of trials that avoided those errors. Finally, we summarize strategies employed successfully in well-designed trials, in hopes of suggesting a comprehensive standard for the field.

CONCLUSION

Flawed critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs can lead to unsound trial conclusions, compromise informed consent, and increase risks to research subjects, undermining the major goal of comparative effectiveness research: to inform current practice. Well-constructed control and comparator arms comprise indispensable elements of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, key to improving the trials' safety and to generating trial results likely to improve patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct: Views of stakeholders from a qualitative study in Ghana

Evidence exists that scientists' dehumanization and exploitation of people in the name of science led to suspicion and mistrust in clinical trials conduct. In Ghana, there are equally signs of public distrust in the conduct of biomedical research. Typical examples are the unsuccessful conduct of the Ebola vaccine trial and the initial refusal of parents to allow their children to receive the recently piloted malaria vaccine in Ghana. Therefore, this study explored participants' views on factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct in Ghana. This was a cross-sectional exploratory study using qualitative research approach. Forty-eight in-depth interviews and Key informant interviews were conducted with stakeholders. Purposive sampling technique was used to select participants. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded into themes using QSR Nvivo 12 software to aid thematic analysis. Overall, participants saw the need for the conduct of clinical trials in Ghana because clinical trial studies enable scientists to come out with effective medicines for the management of diseases. Pre-implementation factors such as inadequate stakeholder engagement, rumours and negative influence affected trust. Implementation factors such as perceived risks about clinical trials medicines, apprehensions on drawing and use of blood samples, poor informed consent administration and perceived no illness all negatively affected trust in clinical trials conduct. Trust is a fundamental factor affecting a successful conduct of clinical trials. Thus, there is need for collective efforts by all stakeholders including research institutions and clinical trial regulatory bodies to take the issue of trust in clinical trials conduct seriously.

Patient, Caregiver, and Decliner Perspectives on Whether to Enroll in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Research

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

Ethical care requires pragmatic care research to guide medical practice under uncertainty

BACKGROUND

The current research-care separation was introduced to protect patients from explanatory studies designed to gain knowledge for future patients. Care trials are all-inclusive pragmatic trials integrated into medical practice, with no extra tests, risks, or cost, and have been designed to guide practice under uncertainty in the best medical interest of the patient.

PROPOSED REVISION

Patients need a distinction between validated care, previously verified to provide better outcomes, and promising but unvalidated care, which may include unnecessary or even harmful interventions. While validated care can be practiced normally, unvalidated care should only be offered within declared pragmatic care research, designed to protect patients from harm. The validated/unvalidated care distinction is normative, necessary to the ethics of medical practice. Care trials, which mark the distinction and allow the tentative use of promising interventions necessarily involve patients, and thus the design and conduct of pragmatic care research must respect the overarching rule of care ethics "to always act in the best medical interest of the patient." Yet, unvalidated interventions offered in contexts of medical uncertainty cannot be prescribed or practiced as if they were validated care. The medical interests of current patients are best protected when unvalidated practices are restricted to a care trial protocol, with 1:1 random allocation (or "hemi-prescription") versus previously validated care, to optimize potential benefits and minimize risks for each patient.

CONCLUSION

Pragmatic trials can regulate medical practice by providing (i) a transparent demarcation between unvalidated and validated care; (ii) norms of medical conduct when using tests and interventions of yet unknown benefits in practice; and eventually (iii) a verdict regarding optimal care.

Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions

Background

Clinical uncertainty and equipoise are vague notions that play important roles in contemporary problems of medical care and research, including the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Our goal was to show how the reliability study methods normally used to assess diagnostic tests can be applied to particular management decisions to measure the degree of uncertainty and equipoise regarding the use of rival management options.

Methods

We first use thrombectomy in acute stroke as an illustrative example of the method we propose. We then review, item by item, how the various design elements of diagnostic reliability studies can be modified in order to measure clinical uncertainty.

Results

The thrombectomy example shows sufficient disagreement and uncertainty to warrant the conduct of additional randomized trials. The general method we propose is that a sufficient number of diverse individual cases sharing a similar clinical problem and covering a wide spectrum of clinical presentations be assembled into a portfolio that is submitted to a variety of clinicians who routinely manage patients with the clinical problem.

Discussion

Clinicians are asked to independently choose one of the predefined management options, which are selected from those that would be compared within a randomized trial that would address the clinical dilemma. Intra-rater agreement can be assessed at a later time with a second evaluation. Various professional judgments concerning individual patients can then be compared and analyzed using kappa statistics or similar methods. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by providing examples or by translating the results into clinically meaningful summary sentences.

Conclusions

Measuring the uncertainty regarding management options for clinical problems may reveal substantial disagreement, provide an empirical foundation for the notion of equipoise, and inform or facilitate the design/conduct of clinical trials to address the clinical dilemma.

Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research

In biomedical research lack of trust is seen as a great threat that can severely jeopardise the whole biomedical research enterprise. Practices, such as informed consent, and also the administrative and regulatory oversight of research in the form of research ethics committees and Institutional Review Boards, are established to ensure the protection of future research subjects and, at the same time, restore public trust in biomedical research. Empirical research also testifies to the role of trust as one of the decisive factors in research participation and lack of trust as a barrier for consenting to research. However, what is often missing is a clear definition of trust. This paper seeks to address this gap. It starts with a conceptual analysis of the term trust. It compares trust with two other related terms, those of reliance and trustworthiness, and offers a defence of Baier's attribute of 'good will' a basic characteristic of trust. It, then, proceeds to consider trust in the context of biomedical research by examining two questions: First, is trust necessary in biomedical research?; and second, do increases in regulatory oversight of biomedical research also increase trust in the field? This paper argues that regulatory oversight is important for increasing reliance in biomedical research, but it does not improve trust, which remains important for biomedical research. It finishes by pointing at professional integrity as a way of promoting trust and trustworthiness in this field.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials

To produce evidence capable of informing healthcare decision making at all critical levels, pragmatic clinical trials are diverse both in terms of the type of intervention (medical, behavioral, and/or technological) and the target of intervention (patients, clinicians, and/or healthcare system processes). Patients and clinicians may be called on to participate as designers, investigators, intermediaries, or subjects of pragmatic clinical trials. Other members of the healthcare team, as well as the healthcare system itself, also may be affected directly or indirectly before, during, or after study implementation. This diversity in the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions has brought into focus the need to consider whether existing ethics and regulatory principles, policies, and procedures are appropriate for pragmatic clinical trials. Specifically, further examination is needed to identify how the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions may influence the assessment of net potential risk, understood as the balance of potential harms and benefits. In this article, we build on scholarship seeking to align ethics and regulatory requirements with potential research risks and propose an approach to the assessment of net risks that is sensitive to the diverse nature of pragmatic clinical trial interventions. We clarify the potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of common types of pragmatic clinical trial interventions and discuss implications for patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Oxygen saturation target range for extremely preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The optimal oxygen saturation (SpO2) target for extremely preterm infants is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of restricted vs liberal oxygen exposure on morbidity and mortality in extremely preterm infants.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases from their inception to March 31, 2014, and abstracts submitted to Pediatric Academic Societies from 2000 to 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

All published randomized trials evaluating the effect of restricted (SpO2, 85%-89%) vs liberal (SpO2, 91%-95%) oxygen exposure in preterm infants (<28 weeks' gestation at birth).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.2. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess study quality. The summary of the findings and the level of confidence in the estimate of effect were assessed using GRADEpro. Treatment effect was analyzed using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Death before hospital discharge, death or severe disability before 24 months, death before 24 months, neurodevelopmental outcomes, hearing loss, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and severe retinopathy of prematurity.

RESULTS

Five trials were included in the final synthesis. These studies had a similar design with a prespecified composite outcome of death/disability at 18 to 24 months corrected for prematurity; however, this outcome has not been reported for 2 of the 5 trials. There was no difference in the outcome of death/disability before 24 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.14]). Mortality before 24 months was not different (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.97-1.33]); however, a significant increase in mortality before hospital discharge was found in the restricted oxygen group (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.03-1.36]). The rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, neurodevelopmental outcomes, hearing loss, and retinopathy of prematurity were similar between the 2 groups. Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred more frequently in infants on restricted oxygen (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]). Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, we found that the quality of evidence for these outcomes was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although infants cared for with a liberal oxygen target had significantly lower mortality before hospital discharge than infants cared for with a restricted oxygen target, the quality of evidence for this estimate of effect is low. Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred less frequently in the liberal oxygen group. We found no significant differences in death or disability at 24 months, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, neurodevelopmental outcomes, or hearing loss at 24 months.

Communication about the risks and benefits of phase I pediatric oncology trials

Introduction

Phase 1 pediatric oncology trials offer only a small chance of direct benefit and may have significant risks and an impact on quality of life. To date, research has not examined discussions of risks and benefits during informed consent conferences for phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. The objective of the current study was to examine clinician and family communication about risks, benefits, and quality of life during informed consent conferences for phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

Methods

Participants included clinician investigators, parents, and children recruited from 6 sites conducting phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. Eighty-five informed consent conferences were observed and audiotaped. Trained coders assessed discussions of risks, benefits, and quality of life. Types of risks discussed were coded (e.g., unanticipated risks, digestive system risks, death). Types of benefits were categorized as therapeutic (e.g. discussion of how participation may or may not directly benefit child), psychological, bridge to future trial, and altruism.

Results

Risks and benefits were discussed in 95% and 88% of informed consent conferences, respectively. Therapeutic benefit was the most frequently discussed benefit. The impact of trial participation on quality of life was discussed in the majority (88%) of informed consent conferences.

Conclusion

Therapeutic benefit, risks, and quality of life were frequently discussed. The range of information discussed during informed consent conferences suggests the need for considering a staged process of informed consent for phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

Pulse oximetry in very low birth weight infants

Pulse oximetry has become ubiquitous and is used routinely during neonatal care. Emerging evidence highlights the continued uncertainty regarding definition of the optimal range to target pulse oximetry oxygen saturation levels in very low birth weight infants. Furthermore, maintaining optimal oxygen saturation targets is a demanding and tedious task because of the frequency with which oxygenation changes, especially in these small infants receiving prolonged respiratory support. This article addresses the historical perspective, basic physiologic principles behind pulse oximetry operation, and the use of pulse oximetry in targeting different oxygen ranges at various time-points throughout the neonatal period.

Comparative effectiveness and practice variation in neonatal care

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a relatively new term for clinical research that directly assists patients, clinicians, and policymakers in making informed decisions to improve health care. In neonatology, there are similarities and differences between CER and existing clinical research and quality improvement literature. This article uses existing examples in neonatal literature to describe CER methodology and list some future directions and challenges in neonatal CER.

Living laboratory: whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise

With the proliferation of affordable large-scale human genomic data come profound and vexing questions about management of such data and their clinical uncertainty. These issues challenge the view that genomic research on human beings can (or should) be fully segregated from clinical genomics, either conceptually or practically. Here, we argue that the sharp distinction between clinical care and research is especially problematic in the context of large-scale genomic sequencing of people with suspected genetic conditions. Core goals of both enterprises (e.g. understanding genotype-phenotype relationships; generating an evidence base for genomic medicine) are more likely to be realized at a population scale if both those ordering and those undergoing sequencing for diagnostic reasons are routinely and longitudinally studied. Rather than relying on expensive and lengthy randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, we propose leveraging nascent clinical-research hybrid frameworks into a broader, more permanent instantiation of exploratory medical sequencing. Such an investment could enlighten stakeholders about the real-life challenges posed by whole-genome sequencing, such as establishing the clinical actionability of genetic variants, returning 'off-target' results to families, developing effective service delivery models and monitoring long-term outcomes.