Ethics and practice of Trials within Cohorts: An emerging pragmatic trial design

Pragmatic Trial Design to Compare Real-world Effectiveness of Different Treatments for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: The PRACTICE-IBD European Consensus

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pragmatic studies designed to test interventions in everyday clinical settings can successfully complement the evidence from registration and explanatory clinical trials. The European consensus project PRACTICE-IBD was developed to identify essential criteria and address key methodological issues needed to design valid, comparative, pragmatic studies in inflammatory bowel diseases [BDs].

METHODS

Statements were issued by a panel of 11 European experts in IBD management and trial methodology, on four main topics: [I] study design; [II] eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; [III] outcomes; [IV] analysis. The consensus process followed a modified Delphi approach, involving two rounds of assessment and rating of the level of agreement [1 to 9; cut-off ≥7 for approval] with the statements by 18 additional European experts in IBD.

RESULTS

At the first voting round, 25 out of the 26 statements reached a mean score ≥7. Following the discussion that preceded the second round of voting, it was decided to eliminate two statements and to split one into two. At the second voting round, 25 final statements were approved: seven for study design; six for eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; eight for outcomes; and four for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic, randomised, clinical trials can address important questions in IBD clinical practice, and may provide complementary, high-level evidence, as long as they follow a methodologically rigorous approach. These 25 statements intend to offer practical guidance in the design of high-quality, pragmatic, clinical trials that can aid decision making in choosing a management strategy for IBDs.

Characteristics, consent patterns, and challenges of randomized trials using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design - A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) is a pragmatic design approach that may overcome frequent challenges of traditional randomized trials such as slow recruitment, burdensome consent procedures, or limited external validity. This scoping review aims to identify all randomized controlled trials using the TwiCs design and to summarize their design characteristics, ways to obtain informed consent, output, reported challenges and mitigation strategies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, trial registries and citation tracking up to December 2022. TwiCs were defined as randomized trials embedded in a cohort with postrandomization consent for the intervention group and no specific postrandomization consent for the usual care control group. Information from identified TwiCs was extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, and registry entries. We analyzed the information descriptively and qualitatively to highlight methodological challenges and solutions related to nonuptake of interventions and informed consent procedure.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 46 TwiCs conducted between 2005 and 2022 in 14 different countries by a handful of research groups. The most common medical fields were oncology (11/46; 24%), infectious diseases (8/46; 17%), and mental health (7/46; 15%). A typical TwiCs was investigator-initiated (46/46; 100%), publicly funded (36/46; 78%), and recruited outpatients (27/46; 59%). Excluding eight pilot trials, only 16/38 (42%) TwiCs adjusted their calculated sample size for nonuptake of the intervention, anticipating a median nonuptake of 25% (interquartile range 10%-32%) in the experimental arm. Seventeen TwiCs (45%) planned analyses to adjust effect estimates for nonuptake. Regarding informed consent, we observed three patterns: 1) three separate consents for cohort participation, randomization, and intervention (17/46; 37%); 2) combined consent for cohort participation and randomization and a separate intervention consent (10/46; 22%); and 3) consent only for cohort participation and intervention (randomization consent not mentioned; 19/46; 41%).

CONCLUSION

Existing TwiCs are globally scattered across a few research groups covering a wide range of medical fields and interventions. Despite the potential advantages, the number of TwiCs remains small. The variability in consent procedures and the possibility of substantial nonuptake of the intervention warrants further research to guide the planning, implementation, and analysis of TwiCs.

Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.

RESULTS

A total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.

Is it feasible to nest a Trial within a Cohort Study (TwiCS) to evaluate an early years parenting programme? A Born in Bradford's Better Start study protocol

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the effectiveness of early years parenting interventions provides evidence to improve the development and wellbeing of children. This protocol paper describes a study to explore the feasibility of evaluating the Incredible Years Toddler early life intervention programme, which is offered to parents of 1-3-year-olds via the Better Start Bradford programme. The study aims to use a Trial within a Cohort Study (TwiCS) design that randomly selects individuals participating in a cohort to be offered an intervention. The TwiCS information and consent process is person-centred and aims to replicate real-world practice whereby only those who are offered the intervention are given information about the intervention. The cohort is the Born in Bradford's Better Start (BiBBS) cohort, an interventional birth cohort recruiting expectant parents in three areas of Bradford, UK. The study will assess the feasibility of TwiCS procedures, staged consent, and intervention take-up.

METHODS

We will conduct a feasibility TwiCS to test study procedures. We aim to establish the following: (1) whether TwiCS methodology can be implemented to create control and intervention arms, whilst documenting any incidences of contamination within the cohort; (2) whether satisfactory rates of intervention uptake are achieved among participants allocated to the intervention; and (3) whether satisfactory rates of retention of participants in the intervention can be achieved. A Red Amber Green (RAG) rating system has been applied to support the feasibility assessment of each objective: to be rated red (not achieved), amber (partly achieved), and green (achieved). Eligible participants in the BiBBS cohort will be individually randomised 1:1 to the intervention or control arms, with stratification by child age (1 or 2 years old at the time of randomisation) and ethnicity (White British, South Asian, or other). BiBBS researchers will seek consent from participants randomised to the intervention to pass their contact details onto Incredible Years' delivery agents.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study will inform the utility of the TwiCs approach within an experimental birth cohort to evaluate interventions for infants, toddlers, and their families.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN16150114).

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.

OptiBreech collaborative care versus standard care for women with a breech-presenting fetus at term: A pilot parallel group randomised trial to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised trial nested within a cohort

OptiBreech collaborative care is a multi-disciplinary care pathway for breech presentation at term, with continuity from a breech specialist midwife, including where chosen, for vaginal breech birth (VBB). Pilot randomised trial using unblinded 1:1 parallel group allocation to OptiBreech versus standard care, within a cohort. Participants were women with a breech-presenting fetus > 33 weeks, at four sites in England, January-June 2022. A two-stage consent process was used. Participants consented to undergo random selection to be offered a 'new care process', with a choice to accept it, or not. Primary objectives were to identify recruitment, acceptance, and attrition rates. Randomisation procedures and potential primary outcomes for a substantive study were also feasibility-tested. 68 women were randomised between January-June 2022. The consent process was acceptable to participants, but randomisation was unacceptable to women who specifically sought OptiBreech care. Two women withdrew due to concerns about sharing personal information. More women planned a VBB when randomised to OptiBreech Care (23.5% vs 0, p = .002, 95% CI = 9.3%,37.8%). Women randomised to OptiBreech care had: lower rates of cephalic presentation at birth (38.2% vs 54.5%), higher rates of vaginal birth (32.4% vs 24.2%), lower rates of in-labour caesarean birth (20.6% vs 36.4%), lower rates of neonatal intensive care (5.9% vs 9.1%), and lower rates of severe neonatal morbidity (2.9% vs 9.1%). Randomisation was stopped on the advice of the steering committee before the planned sample of 104, as lack of access to VBB within standard care prohibited comparison of outcomes. Demand for VBB is sufficient for a cohort study, but comparison of outcomes by 1:1 randomisation is not feasible. OptiBreech care would be best evaluated using stepped wedge cluster randomisation. Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300582). Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 14521381.

Reflecting real-world patients with mesothelioma in research: an interim report of baseline characteristics from the ASSESS-meso cohort

Objective

Mesothelioma varies in clinical phenotype and survival. Clinical trials are unavoidably affected by selection bias, reducing generalisability. ASSESS-meso is a UK, multicentre, prospective, mesothelioma cohort study (ISRCTN61861764). This pre-specified interim analysis, conducted when recruitment reached 25% of target, summarised participant characteristics and evaluated external validity through comparison with real-world and clinical trial cohorts.

Methods

The study took place at 14 hospitals across the UK. People diagnosed with mesothelioma, at any anatomical site, were eligible. Clinical, radiological and biochemical data were collected at enrolment. In this interim report, the external validity of the cohort was investigated through comparison of baseline demographic data with populations included in the 2020 UK National Mesothelioma Audit (real-world cohort), and CHECKMATE-743 and MAPS trials (clinical trial cohorts).

Results

244 patients were enrolled between 7 April 2017 and 1 March 2022. The cohort was predominantly male (195 out of 244; 80%) with a median age of 74 years. Pleural disease and epithelioid subtypes were most prevalent. ASSESS-meso participants were more similar to the real-world population with regard to age, performance status, disease site and stage than the clinical trial population. ASSESS-meso participants were more likely to be formally staged and less likely to have undifferentiated histology compared with the real-world cohort, possibly reflecting high rates of discussion of ASSESS-meso participants at regional mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meetings. As expected, poorer performance status, non-epithelioid histology and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio were associated with shorter survival in the adjusted analysis.

Conclusion

ASSESS-meso is representative of the UK mesothelioma population. Future outputs from the cohort will help characterise different mesothelioma phenotypes with high external validity.

The Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design in oncology: experience and methodological reflections

A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, the participants provide consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to the treatment or standard of care. Patients randomized to the treatment arm are offered the new treatment, which they can choose to refuse. Patients who refuse will receive standard of care instead. Patients randomized to the standard of care arm receive no information about the trial and continue receiving standard of care as part of the cohort study. Standard cohort measures are used for outcome comparisons. The TwiCs study design aims to overcome some issues encountered in standard Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). An example of an issue in standard RCTs is the slow patient accrual. A TwiCs study aims to improve this by selecting patients using a cohort and only offering the intervention to patients in the intervention arm. In oncology, the TwiCs study design has gained increasing interest during the last decade. Despite its potential advantages over RCTs, the TwiCs study design has several methodological challenges that need careful consideration when planning a TwiCs study. In this article, we focus on these challenges and reflect on them using experiences from TwiCs studies initiated in oncology. Important methodological challenges that are discussed are the timing of randomization, the issue of non-compliance (refusal) after randomization in the intervention arm, and the definition of the intention-to-treat effect in a TwiCs study and how this effect is related to its counterpart in standard RCTs.

Effect of Remote Peer-Counsellor- delivered Behavioral Activation and Peer-support for Antenatal Depression on Gestational Age at Delivery: a single-blind, randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Antenatal depression (AD) is the most common complication of pregnancy in developed countries and increases the risk of preterm birth (PTB). Many pregnant individuals with AD do not obtain treatment due in part to risks associated with antidepressant medications, the expense and wait times for psychological services, and perceived stigma. Accessible and timely treatment of antenatal depression is crucial to minimize foetal impacts and associated long-term child health outcomes. Previous studies show that behavioural activation and peer support are promising avenues of treatment for perinatal depression. Additionally, remote and paraprofessional counselling interventions show promise as more accessible, sustainable, and cost-effective treatment avenues than traditional psychological services. The primary aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a remote, behavioural activation and peer support intervention, administered by trained peer para-professionals, for increasing gestational age at delivery among those with antenatal depression. The secondary aims are to evaluate the effectiveness for treating AD prior to delivery, with persistence into the postpartum; improving anxiety symptoms; and improving parenting self-efficacy compared to controls.

METHODS

A two-arm, single-blinded, parallel groups randomized controlled trial (RCT) with repeated measures will be conducted. Participants scoring >10 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale will be recruited from the larger P3 cohort and invited to enroll. Assessments will be conducted prior to 27 weeks' gestation at trial intake (T1), post-intervention, prior to delivery (T2), 5-6 months postpartum (T3), and 11-12 months postpartum (T4) and will include self-report questionnaires and linked medical records.

DISCUSSION

Our remote, peer paraprofessional-delivered behavioural activation plus peer support intervention has the potential to successfully reduce symptoms of AD, which may in turn decrease the risk of PTB and subsequent health impacts. The current trial builds on previous findings and uses a patient-oriented approach to address priorities for patient care and to provide a cost-effective, accessible, and evidence-based treatment to pregnant individuals with AD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry (ISRCTN51098220) ISRCTN51098220. Registered on April 7, 2022.

Treatment de-escalation for stage II seminoma

International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group good-risk metastatic seminoma has cure rates of >95%. Within this risk group, patients with stage II disease exhibit the best oncological outcomes with the standard-of-care treatment strategies of radiotherapy or combination chemotherapy. However, these treatments can be associated with substantial early and late toxic effects. Therapy de-escalation aims to reduce treatment morbidity whilst preserving oncological outcomes. The evidence supporting such approaches is largely from non-randomized institutional data, and therefore this strategy is not recognized as standard of care. Current de-escalation approaches for stage II seminoma include single-agent chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery based on early data from clinical studies. Increased recognition of emerging data on treatment modification to reduce morbidity whilst maintaining cure rates and consideration of therapy de-escalation could improve patient survivorship outcomes.

Loneliness and mood disorders: consequence, cause and/or unholy alliance?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

People with persistent depressive disorders and with bipolar disorder are more likely to feel lonely than people in the general population. This evidence update focused on studies in the last 2 years, characterized by the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent social distancing directives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Longitudinal studies identified that people who feel lonely are more likely to become depressed or to experience relapse of mood disorders. There is emerging evidence that feelings of loneliness or mandatory social isolation can precede manic episodes. Hence the relationship between loneliness and mood disorders is complex and bidirectional. Interventions were developed to reduce loneliness in people with mental health problems, including depressive disorders, through cognitive modification and/or supported socialisation. No loneliness-focused interventions have been specifically tailored to people with bipolar disorder.

SUMMARY

Studies carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic found that feelings of loneliness can be both consequences and precursors of persistent depression and bipolar disorder. Mood symptoms and loneliness have a cumulative negative effect on physical and mental health outcomes. Conceptual overlaps and relations between loneliness and mood symptoms should be clarified in qualitative studies. Theory-driven intervention models should be developed and tested in methodologically robust studies.

Slow recruitment in the HIMALAIA study: lessons for future clinical trials in patients with delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage based on feasibility data

Background

Our randomized clinical trial on induced hypertension in patients with delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) was halted prematurely due to unexpected slow recruitment rates. This raised new questions regarding recruitment feasibility. As our trial can therefore be seen as a feasibility trial, we assessed the reasons for the slow recruitment, aiming to facilitate the design of future randomized trials in aSAH patients with DCI or other critically ill patient categories.

Methods

Efficiency of recruitment and factors influencing recruitment were evaluated, based on the patient flow in the two centers that admitted most patients during the study period. We collected numbers of patients who were screened for eligibility, provided informed consent, and developed DCI and who eventually were randomized.

Results

Of the 862 aSAH patients admitted in the two centers during the course of the trial, 479 (56%) were eligible for trial participation of whom 404 (84%) were asked for informed consent. Of these, 188 (47%) provided informed consent, of whom 50 (27%) developed DCI. Of these 50 patients, 12 (24%) could not be randomized due to a logistic problem or a contraindication for induced hypertension emerging at the time of randomization, and four (8%) were missed for randomization. Eventually, 34 patients were randomized and received intervention or control treatment.

Conclusions

Enrolling patients in a randomized trial on a treatment strategy for DCI proved unfeasible: only 1 out of 25 admitted and 1 out of 14 eligible patients could eventually be randomized. These rates, caused by a large proportion of ineligible patients, a small proportion of patients providing informed consent, and a large proportion of patients with contraindications for treatment, can be used to make sample size calculations for future randomized trials in DCI or otherwise critically ill patients. Facilitating informed consent through improved provision of information on risks, possible benefits, and study procedures may result in improved enrolment.

Trial registration

The original trial was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01613235), date of registration 07-06-2012.

Physical activity and exercise outcomes in Huntington's disease (PACE-HD): results of a 12-month trial-within-cohort feasibility study of a physical activity intervention in people with Huntington's disease

INTRODUCTION

While physical activity (PA) is recognized as important in Huntington's disease (HD) disease management, there has been no long-term evaluation undertaken. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a nested (within cohort) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a physical therapist-led PA intervention.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from six HD specialist centers participating in the Enroll-HD cohort study in Germany, Spain and U.S. Assessments were completed at baseline and 12 months and linked to Enroll-HD cohort data. Participants at three sites (cohort) received no contact between baseline and 12 month assessments. Participants at three additional sites (RCT) were randomized to PA intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of 18 sessions delivered over 12 months; control group participants received no intervention, however both groups completed monthly exercise/falls diaries and 6-month assessments.

RESULTS

274 participants were screened, 204 met inclusion criteria and 116 were enrolled (59 in cohort; 57 in RCT). Retention rates at 12-months were 84.7% (cohort) and 79.0% (RCT). Data completeness at baseline ranged from 42.3 to 100% and at 12-months 19.2-85.2%. In the RCT, there was 80.5% adherence, high intervention fidelity, and similar adverse events between groups. There were differences in fitness, walking endurance and self-reported PA at 12 months favoring the intervention group, with data completeness >60%. Participants in the cohort had motor and functional decline at rates comparable to previous studies.

CONCLUSION

Predefined progression criteria indicating feasibility were met. PACE-HD lays the groundwork for a future, fully-powered within cohort trial, but approaches to ensure data completeness must be considered.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT03344601.

COVID-19 drug research and the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design

We read with interest the comment of R. Dal-Ré on the CORIMUNO-19 trials design [1–5]. The key argument is that the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design implies an alteration of the informed process that can only be justified if three requirements are fulfilled: the research has important social value, it poses no more than minimal risks to participants, and it would be impracticable to carry out without consent process modification [6]. R. Dal-Ré acknowledges that the first two requirements were fulfilled for CORIMUNO-19 trials, but argues that, given the huge number of patients hospitalised with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in March 2020, trials would have been feasible without consent modification.

The use of cohort multiple randomised controlled trials and epidemic crises https://bit.ly/39Obd4N

The first patient-reported outcomes from the Utrecht Prostate Cohort (UPC): the first platform facilitating 'trials within cohorts' (TwiCs) for the evaluation of interventions for prostate cancer

Purpose

To describe the development and first outcomes of the Utrecht Prostate Cohort (UPC): the first ‘trials within cohorts’ (TwiCs) platform for prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

All non-metastasized, histologically proven PCa patients who are planned to receive standard of care are eligible for inclusion in UPC. Patients provide informed consent for the collection of clinical and technical patient data, physician-reported outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) up to 10 years post-treatment. Additionally, patients may provide broad consent for future randomization for experimental-intervention trials (TwiCs). Changes in PROs (EPIC-26 questionnaire domains) of the participants who received standard of care were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results

In two years, 626 patients were enrolled, 503 (80.4%) of whom provided broad consent for future randomization. Among these, 293 (46.8%) patients underwent magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgRT), 116 (18.5%) CT-guided external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), 109 (17.4%) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and 65 (10.4%) patients opted for active surveillance. Patients treated with MRgRT and CT-guided EBRT showed a transient but significant decline in urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel domain scores at 1-month follow-up. RARP patients showed a significant deterioration of urinary incontinence domain scores between baseline and all follow-up moments and significant improvement of urinary irritative/obstructive domain scores between baseline and 9- and 12-month follow-up. All radical treatment groups showed a significant decline in sexual domain scores during follow-up. Active surveillance patients showed no significant deterioration over time in all domains.

Conclusion

The first results from the UPC study show distinct differences in PROs between treatment options for PCa.

Registration No.: NCT04228211.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-022-04092-2.

A proportionate, universal parenting programme to enhance social-emotional well-being in infants and toddlers in England: the E-SEE Steps RCT

Background

Mental disorders have become a public health crisis. Early prevention is key. Parenting programmes are effective for children aged ≥ 3 years; however, there is a lack of evidence of their effectiveness for children aged ≤ 2 years.

Objectives

To establish if the model named Enhancing Social–Emotional Health and Well-being in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps can (1) enhance child social emotional well-being and establish whether or not it is cost-effective at 20 months of age when compared with services as usual; and (2) be delivered as a proportionate universal model with fidelity.

Design

A pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial and economic appraisal, with an embedded process evaluation to examine the outcomes, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and intervention uptake, compared with services as usual. The study had an external pilot phase (which was originally planned as an internal pilot).

Setting

The intervention was delivered in community settings by early years children’s services and/or public health staff in four sites.

Participants

A total of 341 parents of infants aged ≤ 8 weeks were randomised in a ratio of 5 : 1 (intervention, n = 285; control, n = 56). The target sample was 606 parents.

Intervention

Two Incredible Years® parenting programmes (i.e. infant and toddler) delivered in a proportionate universal model with three levels [one universal (book) and two targeted group-based parenting programmes].

Main outcome measures

Child social and emotional well-being (primary outcome) was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, at 2, 9 and 18 months after randomisation. Parent depression (secondary key outcome) was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items. Both questionnaires were eligibility screeners for targeted groups.

Results

The primary outcome analysis provided no evidence that the E-SEE Steps model was effective in enhancing child social and emotional well-being. The adjusted mean difference was 3.02 on the original Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, in favour of the control [95% confidence interval –0.03 to 6.08; p = 0.052; N = 321 (intervention, n = 268; control, n = 53)]. Analysis of the key secondary outcome (i.e. parent depression levels as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items) provided weak evidence on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in favour of the intervention (adjusted mean difference –0.61, 95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.12; p = 0.1). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between arms. The economic analysis showed that the E-SEE Steps model was associated with higher costs and was marginally more effective (0.031 quality-adjusted life-years gained from E-SEE Steps compared with SAU, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.071) than services as usual, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £20,062 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with services as usual. Overall take-up of the targeted parenting programmes was low. Sites, although enthusiastic, identified barriers to delivering the intervention.

Limitations

The target sample size was not met and the study was not powered to explore the effectiveness of each level of intervention. Most parents in the sample were well educated and, therefore, the results are unlikely to be generalisable, particularly to those at greatest risk of poor social and emotional well-being.

Conclusions

The E-SEE Steps proportionate universal model did not enhance child social and emotional well-being, but generated non-significant improvements in parent health outcomes, resulting in considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The primary and key secondary outcome gave inconsistent signals. Although, with system changes, increased resources and adaptations to the intervention, the model could be implemented, evidence for positive outcomes from the E-SEE Steps model is poor.

Future work

The universal-level E-SEE Step data (i.e. the Incredible Years book) from the external pilot will be pooled with the main trial data for further exploration up to follow-up 1, which is the time point at which most change was seen.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11079129.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Considerations for clinical trial design and conduct in the evaluation of novel advanced therapeutics in neurodegenerative disease

The recent advances in the development of potentially disease modifying cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease has resulted in the production of a number of promising novel therapies which are now moving forward to clinical evaluation. The robust evaluation of these therapies pose a significant number of challenges when compared to more traditional evaluations of pharmacotherapy, which is the current mainstay of neurodegenerative disease symptom management. Indeed, there is an inherent complexity in the design and conduct of these trials at multiple levels. Here we discuss specific aspects requiring consideration in the context of investigating novel cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease. This extends to overarching trial designs that could be employed and the factors that underpin design choices such outcome assessments, participant selection and methods for delivery of cell and gene therapies. We explore methods of data collection that may improve efficiency in trials of cell and gene therapy to maximize data sharing and collaboration. Lastly, we explore some of the additional context beyond efficacy evaluations that should be considered to ensure implementation across relevant healthcare settings.

Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: The rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo

To date, nutritional epidemiology has relied heavily on relatively weak methods including simple observational designs and substandard measurements. Despite low internal validity and other sources of bias, claims of causality are made commonly in this literature. Nutritional epidemiology investigations can be improved through greater scientific rigor and adherence to scientific reporting commensurate with research methods used. Some commentators advocate jettisoning nutritional epidemiology entirely, perhaps believing improvements are impossible. Still others support only normative refinements. But neither abolition nor minor tweaks are appropriate. Nutritional epidemiology, in its present state, offers utility, yet also needs marked, reformational renovation. Changing the status quo will require ongoing, unflinching scrutiny of research questions, practices, and reporting-and a willingness to admit that "good enough" is no longer good enough. As such, a workshop entitled "Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: the rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo" was held from July 15 to August 14, 2020. This virtual symposium focused on: (1) Stronger Designs, (2) Stronger Measurement, (3) Stronger Analyses, and (4) Stronger Execution and Reporting. Participants from several leading academic institutions explored existing, evolving, and new better practices, tools, and techniques to collaboratively advance specific recommendations for strengthening nutritional epidemiology.

Co-production of randomized clinical trials with patients: a case study in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant for patients with scleroderma

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, it is argued that clinical trials struggle to recruit participants because they do not respond to key questions or study treatments that patients will be willing or able to use. This study explores how elicitation of patient-preferences can help designers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) understand the impact of changing modifiable aspects of treatments or trial design on recruitment.

METHODS

Focus groups and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey were used to elicit preferences of people with scleroderma for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) treatment interventions. Preferences for seven attributes of treatment (effectiveness, immediate and long-term risk, care team composition and experience, cost, travel distance) were estimated using a mixed-logit model and used to predict participation in RCTs.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-eight people with scleroderma answered the survey. All AHSCT treatment attributes significantly influenced preferences. Treatment effectiveness and risk of late complications contributed the most to participants' choices, but modifiable factors of distance to treatment center and cost also affected preferences. Predicted recruitment rates calibrated with participation in a recent trial (33%) and suggest offering a treatment closer to home, at lower patient cost, and with holistic, multidisciplinary care could increase participation to 51%.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a patient engaged approach to preference elicitation for different features of AHSCT treatment options, we were able to predict what drives the decisions of people with scleroderma to participate in RCTs. Knowledge regarding concerns and the trade-offs people are willing to make can inform clinical study design, improving recruitment rates and potential uptake of the treatment of interest.

Challenges and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Trials: Should We Be Doing Clinical Trials Differently?

The COVID-19 crisis led to a flurry of clinical trials activity. The COVID-evidence database shows 2814 COVID-19 randomized trials registered as of February 16, 2021. Most were small (only 18% have a planned sample size > 500) and the rare completed ones have not provided published results promptly (only 283 trial publications as of February 2021). Small randomized trials and observational, nonrandomized analyses have not had a successful track record and have generated misleading expectations. Different large trials on the same intervention have generally been far more efficient in producing timely and consistent evidence. The rapid generation of evidence and accelerated dissemination of results have led to new challenges for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (eg, rapid, living, and scoping reviews). Pressure to regulatory agencies has also mounted with massive emergency authorizations, but some of them have had to be revoked. Pandemic circumstances have disrupted the way trials are conducted; therefore, new methods have been developed and adopted more widely to facilitate recruitment, consent, and overall trial conduct. On the basis of the COVID-19 experience and its challenges, planning of several large, efficient trials, and wider use of adaptive designs might change the future of clinical research. Pragmatism, integration in clinical care, efficient administration, promotion of collaborative structures, and enhanced integration of existing data and facilities might be several of the legacies of COVID-19 on future randomized trials.

Cohorts as collections of bodies and communities of persons: insights from the SEARCH010/RV254 research cohort

Longitudinal research cohorts are uniquely suited to answer research questions about morbidity and mortality. Cohorts may be comprised of individuals identified by specific conditions or other shared traits. We argue that research cohorts are more than simply aggregations of individuals and their associated data to meet research objectives. They are social communities comprised of members, investigators and organizations whose own interests, identities and cultures interact and evolve over time. The literature describes a range of scientific and ethical challenges and opportunities associated with cohorts. To advance these deliberations, we report examples from the literature and our own research on the Thai SEARCH010/RV254 cohort, comprising individuals diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during acute infection. We reflect on the impact of cohort experiences and identity, and specifically how people incorporate cohort participation into meaning making associated with their diagnosis, the influence of cohort participation on decision making for early-phase clinical trials recruited from within the cohort, and the impact of the relationships that exist between researchers and participants. These data support the concept of cohorts as communities of persons, where identity is shaped, in part, through cohort experiences. The social meanings associated with cohorts have implications for the ethics of cohort-based research, as social contexts inevitably affect the ways that ethical concerns manifest.

A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing

OBJECTIVE

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.

RESULTS

4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

Treating to target in psoriatic arthritis: assessing real-world outcomes and optimising therapeutic strategy for adults with psoriatic arthritis-study protocol for the MONITOR-PsA study, a trials within cohorts study design

Background

The Tight Control of psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA) trial confirmed improved clinical outcomes with a treat to target (T2T) strategy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This consisted of 4-weekly review and escalation of ‘step up’ therapy (single disease modifying therapy (DMARD), combination DMARDs and then biologics) based on remission criteria. Based on this, a T2T approach is supported by European PsA treatment recommendations. However, it is not commonly implemented in routine care primarily due to feasibility and cost concerns. In the TICOPA trial, the same treatment regime was used for all participants regardless of their disease profile. Despite the recognition of PsA as a highly heterogeneous condition, no studies have tailored which drugs are used depending on disease severity. The cohort will establish real world outcomes for the T2T approach in PsA and also form the basis of a trials within cohorts (TWiCs) design to test alternative therapeutic approaches within embedded clinical trials providing an evidence base for treatment strategy in PsA.

Methods

The Multicentre Observational Initiative in Treat to target Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis (MONITOR-PsA) cohort will apply a T2T approach within routine care. It will recruit newly diagnosed adult patients with PsA starting systemic therapies. The cohort is observational allowing routine therapeutic care within NHS clinics but a T2T approach will be supported when monitoring treatment within the cohort. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with active PsA with ≥ 1 tender or swollen joints or enthesis who have not previously had treatment with DMARDs for articular disease.

Discussion

This study is the first TWiC designed to support a fully powered randomised drug trial. The results from the observational cohort will be compared with those observed in the TICOPA trial investigating the clinical effectiveness and health care costs of the pragmatic T2T approach. Nested trials will provide definitive RCT evidence establishing the optimal management of PsA within the T2T approach. The TWiCs design allows robust generalizability to routine healthcare, avoids disappointment bias, aids recruitment and in future will allow assessment of longer-term outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03531073. Retrospectively registered on 21 May 2018.

Patient accrual and understanding of informed consent in a two-stage consent design

BACKGROUND

We previously introduced the concept of "two-stage" (or "just-in-time") informed consent for randomized trials with usual care control. We argued that conducting consent in two stages-splitting information about research procedures from information about the experimental intervention-would reduce the decisional anxiety, confusion, and information overload commonly associated with informed consent. We implemented two-stage consent in a low-stakes randomized trial of a mindfulness meditation intervention for procedural distress in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Here, we report accrual rates and patient understanding of the consent process.

METHODS

Patients approached for consent for the biopsy trial were asked to complete the standard "Quality of Informed Consent" questionnaire to assess their knowledge and understanding of the trial.

RESULTS

Accrual was excellent with 108 of 110 (98%) patients approached for consent signing first-stage consent. All 51 patients randomized to the experimental arm and who later presented for biopsy signed second-stage consent and received the mindfulness intervention. Quality of Informed Consent data were available for 48 patients assigned to the mindfulness treatment arm and 44 controls. The mean Quality of Informed Consent score was similar in the meditation and control arms with and overall mean of 75 (95% confidence interval = 74-76) for the knowledge section and 86 (95% confidence interval = 81-90) for understanding, comparable to the normative scores of 80 and 88. On further analysis and patient interview, two of the Quality of Informed Consent questions were found to be misleading in the context of a two-stage consent study for a mindfulness intervention. Excluding these questions increased knowledge scores to 88 (95% confidence interval = 87-90).

CONCLUSION

We found promising data that two-stage consent facilitated accrual without compromising patient understanding of randomized trials or compliance with allocated treatment. Further research is needed incorporating randomized comparison of two-stage consent to standard consent approaches, measuring patient anxiety and distress as an outcome, using suitable modifications to the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire and trials with higher stakes.

The adapted Zelen was a feasible design to trial exercise in myeloma survivors

OBJECTIVES

We used a method rarely seen in cancer behavioral trials to explore methods of overcoming difficulties often seen in randomized controlled trials. We report our experiences of the adapted Zelen design, so that other researchers can consider this approach for behavioral trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The adapted Zelen design was used to explore the effects of exercise on multiple myeloma patients fatigue, quality of life, and physical outcomes. All participants consented to an observational cohort study of lifestyle factors but were unaware of subsequent randomization to remain in cohort only group or be offered an exercise intervention requiring second consent.

RESULTS

There was lower than expected uptake to the exercise offered group (57%), so the length of recruitment increased from 24 to 29 months to ensure power was reached. At enrollment, patients were unaware of the potential increased commitment, and as a result, 62% of participants allocated to the intervention declined because of the extra time/travel commitment required. This emulates clinical settings and suggests improvements in intervention delivery are required. Our findings suggest that the adapted Zelen design may be useful in limiting dropout of controls due to dissatisfaction from group allocation, or contamination of control arm.

CONCLUSION

Future use of this design warrants careful consideration of the study resources and recruitment time frames required but holds potential value in reducing contamination, control group dissatisfaction, and resulting dropout. Adapted Zelen design reduces selection bias and therefore gives clinicians a better understanding of acceptability in clinical settings. Future studies should evaluate control group experiences of the design and formally record contamination throughout the study to confirm its acceptability.

Learning health care systems: Highly needed but challenging

BACKGROUND

Learning health care systems (LHSs) have the potential to transform health care. However, this transformation process faces significant challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on proposals and early examples of LHSs in the literature and conceptual analysis of the LHS mission, we provide four models with distinct organizational and ethical implications that may facilitate the transformation.

RESULTS

An LHS could be developed in the following ways: by taking away practical impediments that prevent patients and professionals from engaging in scientific research (model 1: optimization LHS); by routinely analyzing observational data from electronic health records and other sources (model 2: comprehensive data LHS); by making clinical decisions based on the outcomes of the aforementioned data analyses and directly evaluating the outcomes in order to continuously improve decision-making (model 3: real-time LHS); or by embedding clinical trials into routine care delivery (model 4: full LHS).

CONCLUSIONS

Each model has different ethical implications for consent and oversight. Also, the four-model approach shows that reorganizing a health care center into an LHS is not an all-or-nothing decision. Rather, it is a choice from a menu of possibilities. Instead of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the LHS menu in its entirety, the medical community should focus on the designs and ethical aspects of each of the separate options.

Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for designing and conducting a pragmatic clinical trial compared with a classical randomized clinical trial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pragmatic clinical trials are a popular study design testing effectiveness of health interventions and are intended to address the limitations associated with traditional explanatory randomized clinical trials testing efficacy of interventions. To date, only few pragmatic clinical trials have been conducted in osteoporosis. Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under routine clinical practice setting and are intended to inform policy makers and clinical decisions. Osteoporosis is a chronic disease well-suited to this particular study design given the existence of a clear and specific natural endpoint, namely fracture occurrence, and the availability of several treatments to prevent fractures.

Enrolment-latency in randomized behavior change trials: individual participant data meta-analysis showed association with attrition but not effect-size

OBJECTIVES

Nonresponse can bias prevalence estimates in population surveys. Effects of selective participation in behavior change intervention trials have been little studied. We tested hypotheses that trial participants who are hard to recruit are (1) more likely to be lost-to-follow-up and (2) less responsive to intervention.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We undertook a two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis of four alcohol intervention trials involving 9,251 university students in Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden, comparing participants who enrolled "late" (after the final invitation to participate) vs. "early" (before that). Outcomes were whether participants completed assessments at each trial's primary endpoint (late/early) and number of drinks consumed per week (intervention/control) among late enrolees vs. early enrolees.

RESULTS

Late enrolees were more likely to be lost-to-follow-up than early enrolees (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.7, 2.9). Intervention effect estimates were smaller for late vs. early enrolees, but not significantly so (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Greater effort to recruit trial participants was associated with higher attrition, but there was no clear evidence of bias in effect estimation. The possibility that intervention effect estimates do not generalize beyond a relatively compliant minority of trial participants may warrant further study.

Protocol for a feasibility study of a cohort embedded randomised controlled trial comparing phron paring reatment (NEST) for small renal masses

INTRODUCTION

Small renal masses (SRMs; ≤4 cm) account for two-thirds of new diagnoses of kidney cancer, the majority of which are incidental findings. The natural history of the SRM seems largely indolent. There is an increasing concern regarding surgical overtreatment and the associated health burden in terms of morbidity and economy. Observational data support the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cryoablation but there is an unmet need for high-quality evidence on non-surgical management options and a head-to-head comparison with standard of care is lacking. Historical interventional trial recruitment difficulties demand novel study conduct approaches. We aim to assess if a novel trial design, the cohort embedded randomised controlled trial (RCT), will enable carrying out such a comparison.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Single-centre prospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with SRM (n=200) with an open label embedded interventional RCT comparing nephron sparing interventions. Cohort participants will be managed at patient and clinicians' discretion and agree with longitudinal clinical data and biological sample collection, with invitation for trial interventions and participation in comparator control groups. Cohort participants with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma eligible for both percutaneous cryoablation and partial nephrectomy will be randomly selected (1:1) and invited to consider percutaneous cryoablation (n=25). The comparator group will be robotic partial nephrectomy (n=25). The primary outcome of this feasibility study is participant recruitment. Qualitative research techniques will assess barriers and recruitment improvement opportunities. Secondary outcomes are participant trial retention, health-related quality of life, treatment complications, blood transfusion rate, intensive care unit admission and renal replacement requirement rates, length of hospital stay, time to return to pre-treatment activities, number of work days lost, and health technologies costs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted (UK HRA REC 19/EM/0004). Study outputs will be presented and published.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN18156881; Pre-results.

Ethical Acceptability of Postrandomization Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Pragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial.

RESULTS

A total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.

Just-in-time consent: The ethical case for an alternative to traditional informed consent in randomized trials comparing an experimental intervention with usual care

Informed consent for randomized trials often causes significant and persistent anxiety, distress and confusion to patients. Where an experimental treatment is compared to a standard care control, much of this burden is potentially avoidable in the control group. We propose a "just-in-time" consent in which consent discussions take place in two stages: an initial consent to research from all participants and a later specific consent to randomized treatment only from those assigned to the experimental intervention. All patients are first approached and informed about research procedures, such as questionnaires or tests. They are also informed that they might be randomly selected to receive an experimental treatment and that, if selected, they can learn more about the treatment and decide whether or not to accept it at that time. After randomization, control patients undergo standard clinical consent whereas patients randomized to the experimental procedure undergo a second consent discussion. Analysis would be by intent-to-treat, which protects the trial from selection bias, although not from poor acceptance of experimental treatment. The advantages of just-in-time consent stem from the fact that only patients randomized to the experimental treatment are subject to a discussion of that intervention. We hypothesize that this will reduce much of the patient's burden associated with the consent process, such as decisional anxiety, confusion and information overload. We recommend well-controlled studies to compare just-in-time and traditional consent, with endpoints to include characteristics of participants, distress and anxiety and participants' understanding of research procedures.