Delaying and withholding interventions: ethics and the stepped wedge trial

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.

Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review

Real world evidence is now accepted by authorities charged with assessing the benefits and harms of new therapies. Clinical trials based on real world evidence are much less expensive than randomized clinical trials that do not rely on "real world evidence" such as contained in electronic health records (EHR). Consequently, we can expect an increase in the number of reports of these types of trials, which we identify here as 'EHR-sourced trials.' 'In this selected literature review, we discuss the various designs and the ethical issues they raise. EHR-sourced trials have the potential to improve/increase common data elements and other aspects of the EHR and related systems. Caution is advised, however, in drawing causal inferences about the relationships among EHR variables. Nevertheless, we anticipate that EHR-CTs will play a central role in answering research and regulatory questions.

Public Policy Experiments without Equipoise: When Is Randomization Fair?

Government agencies and nonprofit organizations have increasingly turned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate public policy interventions. Random assignment is widely understood to be fair when there is equipoise; however, some scholars and practitioners argue that random assignment is also permissible when an intervention is reasonably expected to be superior to other trial arms. For example, some argue that random assignment to such an intervention is fair when the intervention is scarce, for it is sometimes fair to use a lottery to allocate scarce goods. We investigate the permissibility of randomization in public policy RCTs when there is no equipoise, identifying two sets of conditions under which it is fair to allocate access to a superior intervention via random assignment. We also reject oft-made claims that alternative study designs, including stepped-wedge designs and uneven randomization, offer fair ways to allocate beneficial interventions.

Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) designs are increasingly employed in pragmatic research; they differ from traditional parallel cluster randomized trials in which an intervention is delivered to a subset of clusters, but not to all. In a SW-CRT, all clusters receive the intervention under investigation by the end of the study. This approach is thought to avoid ethical concerns about the denial of a desired intervention to participants in control groups. Such concerns have been cited in the literature as a primary motivation for choosing SW-CRT design, however SW-CRTs raise additional ethical concerns related to the delayed implementation of an intervention and consent. Yet, PCT investigators may choose SW-CRT designs simply because they are concerned that other study designs are infeasible. In this paper, we examine justifications for the use of SW-CRT study design, over other designs, by drawing on the experience of the National Institutes of Health's Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) with five pragmatic SW-CRTs. We found that decisions to use SW-CRT design were justified by practical and epistemic reasons rather than ethical ones. These include concerns about feasibility, the heterogeneity of cluster characteristics, and the desire for simultaneous clinical evaluation and implementation. In this paper we compare the potential benefits of SW-CRTs against the ethical and epistemic challenges brought forth by the design and suggest that the choice of SW-CRT design must balance epistemic, feasibility and ethical justifications. Moreover, given their complexity, such studies need rigorous and informed ethical oversight.

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Stepped wedge trials

A stepped wedge trial evaluates an intervention that is implemented over a number of time periods according to a staggered timetable. Stepped wedge trials are usually cluster randomized, the intervention being delivered at some geographical, service or other cluster level. There is considerable variety in the design and conduct of stepped wedge trials in practice. The analysis of a stepped wedge trial often assumes that the effect of the intervention is maintained at a constant level once it has been implemented. It is important when estimating this effect to adjust for a period effect or underlying secular trend, since time is confounded with intervention, and to account for the clustering of outcomes. The advantage often cited for a stepped wedge design is that every cluster ends up getting the intervention, though in any trial design we can offer the intervention preferentially to control clusters after the trial has finished. The real advantage of a stepped wedge design is likely to be practicality or statistical efficiency.

Reflection on modern methods: when is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial a good study design choice?

The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) involves the sequential transition of clusters (such as hospitals, public health units or communities) from control to intervention conditions in a randomized order. The use of the SW-CRT is growing rapidly. Yet the SW-CRT is at greater risks of bias compared with the conventional parallel cluster randomized trial (parallel-CRT). For this reason, the CONSORT extension for SW-CRTs requires that investigators provide a clear justification for the choice of study design. In this paper, we argue that all other things being equal, the SW-CRT is at greater risk of bias due to misspecification of the secular trends at the analysis stage. This is particularly problematic for studies randomizing a small number of heterogeneous clusters. We outline the potential conditions under which an SW-CRT might be an appropriate choice. Potentially appropriate and often overlapping justifications for conducting an SW-CRT include: (i) the SW-CRT provides a means to conduct a randomized evaluation which otherwise would not be possible; (ii) the SW-CRT facilitates cluster recruitment as it enhances the acceptability of a randomized evaluation either to cluster gatekeepers or other stakeholders; (iii) the SW-CRT is the only feasible design due to pragmatic and logistical constraints (for example the roll-out of a scare resource); and (iv) the SW-CRT has increased statistical power over other study designs (which will include situations with a limited number of clusters). As the number of arguments in favour of an SW-CRT increases, the likelihood that the benefits of using the SW-CRT, as opposed to a parallel-CRT, outweigh its risks also increases. We argue that the mere popularity and novelty of the SW-CRT should not be a factor in its adoption. In situations when a conventional parallel-CRT is feasible, it is likely to be the preferred design.

Ottawa Statement does not impede randomised evaluation of government health programmes

In this issue of JME, Watson et al call for research evaluation of government health programmes and identify ethical guidance, including the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials, as a hindrance. While cluster randomised trials of health programmes as a whole should be evaluated by research ethics committees (RECs), Watson et al argue that the health programme per se is not within the researcher's control or responsibility and, thus, is out of scope for ethics review. We argue that this view is wrong. The scope of research ethics review is not defined by researcher control or responsibility, but rather by the protection of research participants. And the randomised evaluation of health programmes impacts the liberty and welfare interests of participants insofar as they may be exposed to a harmful programme or denied access to a beneficial one. Further, Watson et al's claim that 'study programmes … would occur whether or not there were any … research activities' is incorrect in the case of cluster randomised designs. In a cluster randomised trial, the government does not implement a programme as usual. Rather, researchers collaborate with the government to randomise clusters to intervention or control conditions in order to rigorously evaluate the programme. As a result, equipoise issues are triggered that must be addressed by the REC.