Ethical and scientific considerations for patient enrollment into concurrent clinical trials

Co-enrolment to UK Critical Care Studies - A 2019 update

In 2013, a group of clinicians on behalf of the National Institute for Health Research, collaborated with ICU Steps to produce guidance about people being enrolled in more than one critical care trial. This is referred to as "co-enrolment" and can be where a person takes part in one study at the same time as another study (or one after the other in a short time-frame). For instance, being part of a study looking at sepsis drugs and a mechanical ventilation weaning study. The drivers for developing this guidance were a lack of any existing guidance, nationally and internationally, at that time, and a desire to ensure high quality research is conducted. The emphasis was on making trials as safe as possible for patients and ensuring robust trial outcomes. Critical care was seen to lead in this, with our exemplar guidance used across all health research. We wish to revisit this guidance now that there is more experience of coenrolment in critical care trials. There is also more awareness of different consent models, such as deferred consent (taking consent when a person is awake and able to give consent) and consultee consent (asking families or independent professionals to consent). Consenting to coenrolment is an important ethical consideration for the revision of this guidance.

Interactions in clinical trials: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an explorative study of four randomized ICU trials on use of pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations.

METHODS

This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses' tests of interaction. A p-value below .05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded randomized controlled trials was infrequent and variable

OBJECTIVE

To explore the approach to participant coenrolment in publicly funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to consider its impact on study recruitment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study of the UK National Institute for Health Research Journals Library was undertaken. RCTs funded between 2010 and 2019 were eligible. The reporting of coenrolment criteria was assessed through inspection of publicly available study protocols. Where present, the approach to coenrolment was examined, including circumstances in which it was permitted/prohibited and the mechanism for decision-making. For completed RCTs, the impact on recruitment was explored by comparing rates of early recruitment (completion before the expected end date) and extensions (completion after the expected end date) between studies, which did and did not permit coenrolment.

RESULTS

Of 219 eligible protocols, coenrolment was addressed in 94 (42.9%). Twenty-three (24.5%) of these did not allow recruitment to multiple studies, while 71 (75.5%) permitted it according to a series of caveats, including considerations of study outcomes, intervention type, and patient burden. The final decision for coenrolment rested with the local recruitment team in 57 (60.6%) and with the central organizing team in 37 (39.4%). Early completion of recruitment occurred in 8 of 64 (12.5%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 5 of 20 (25.0%) where it was not (P = 0.285). An extension to recruitment time was required in 31 of 64 (48.4%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 9 of 11 (45.0%) where it was not (P = 0.788).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded RCTs is infrequent, and where present, the approach to decision-making is widely variable. In this study, policies of coenrolment were not associated with gains in trial recruitment.

Infectious diseases epidemiology, quantitative methodology, and clinical research in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspective from a European country

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy.

Patient and caregiver engagement in research: factors that influence co-enrollment in research

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of pediatric participants in studies is difficult due to the vulnerability of this population and the scarcity of certain conditions. Co-enrolling in multiple studies is a strategy that may help overcome this problem. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that co-enrollment may increase patient and caregiver burden, few studies have been conducted from the patient perspective. The objective of this quality improvement project was to elicit patient and caregiver opinions on co-enrolling in multiple research studies.

METHODS

Patients and caregivers attending the rheumatology clinic at The Hospital for Sick Children were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview or focus group session. Participants were asked to respond to ten prompts, organized into five categories: experience in clinical research, multiple studies, study selection, study timing and other comments. Sessions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 10 to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Overall, eighteen caregivers and two patients were included in the study. Participants felt that the level of study involvement, rather than the number of studies, was the biggest factor affecting their decision to participate. Another factor commonly identified was the competing demands of participants' work and family life. Participants indicated that they generally preferred to be informed about all study opportunities and liked to receive this information prior to their appointments. Once informed, they preferred to be approached by the research team while they were waiting for their appointment.

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers are open to the concept of co-enrolling in multiple research studies. There are multiple factors which influence decisions to co-enroll in studies including the demands of the study and personal limitations. These findings will help guide the design and practices of future research.

Ethical issues in competing clinical trials

The proliferation of clinical trials in the last decade and the relatively limited number of experienced clinical trial sites in comparison has created in some sites an environment of clinical trial abundance. As clinical trial protocols typically restrict patients from concurrent clinical trial participation, and patients may be eligible for more than one trial at any given time, selecting the best trial for an individual patient requires evaluation of not only the merits of the individual trials but also patient preferences. This article highlights some potential ethical issues which should be considered when clinical trials are raised as a treatment option and when patients are eligible for more than one trial at the time of evaluation.

Aquatic therapy for children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare disease that causes the progressive loss of motor abilities such as walking. Standard treatment includes physiotherapy. No trial has evaluated whether or not adding aquatic therapy (AT) to land-based therapy (LBT) exercises helps to keep muscles strong and children independent.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of recruiting boys with DMD to a randomised trial evaluating AT (primary objective) and to collect data from them; to assess how, and how well, the intervention and trial procedures work.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, single-blind, randomised pilot trial with nested qualitative research.

SETTING

Six paediatric neuromuscular units.

PARTICIPANTS

Children with DMD aged 7-16 years, established on corticosteroids, with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 8-34 and able to complete a 10-m walk without aids/assistance. Exclusions: > 20% variation between baseline screens 4 weeks apart and contraindications.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated on a 1 : 1 ratio to (1) optimised, manualised LBT (prescribed by specialist neuromuscular physiotherapists) or (2) the same plus manualised AT (30 minutes, twice weekly for 6 months: active assisted and/or passive stretching regime; simulated or real functional activities; submaximal exercise). Semistructured interviews with participants, parents (n = 8) and professionals (n = 8) were analysed using Framework analysis. An independent rater reviewed patient records to determine the extent to which treatment was optimised. A cost-impact analysis was performed. Quantitative and qualitative data were mixed using a triangulation exercise.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility of recruiting 40 participants in 6 months, participant and therapist views on the acceptability of the intervention and research protocols, clinical outcomes including NSAA, independent assessment of treatment optimisation and intervention costs.

RESULTS

Over 6 months, 348 children were screened - most lived too far from centres or were enrolled in other trials. Twelve (30% of target) were randomised to AT (n = 8) or control (n = 4). People in the AT (n = 8) and control (n = 2: attrition because of parental report) arms contributed outcome data. The mean change in NSAA score at 6 months was -5.5 [standard deviation (SD) 7.8] for LBT and -2.8 (SD 4.1) in the AT arm. One boy suffered pain and fatigue after AT, which resolved the same day. Physiotherapists and parents valued AT and believed that it should be delivered in community settings. The independent rater considered AT optimised for three out of eight children, with other children given programmes that were too extensive and insufficiently focused. The estimated NHS costs of 6-month service were between £1970 and £2734 per patient.

LIMITATIONS

The focus on delivery in hospitals limits generalisability.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither a full-scale frequentist randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting in the UK alone nor a twice-weekly open-ended AT course delivered at tertiary centres is feasible. Further intervention development research is needed to identify how community-based pools can be accessed, and how families can link with each other and community physiotherapists to access tailored AT programmes guided by highly specialised physiotherapists. Bayesian RCTs may be feasible; otherwise, time series designs are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41002956.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Enrollment of Neonates in More Than One Clinical Trial

Because the highest rates of morbidity and mortality in neonates are seen in those born at <32 weeks' gestation, this group has the most urgent need for novel therapies to improve survival and outcome. Legislative efforts in the United States and Europe have attempted to address this issue by requiring the study of drugs, biological and nutritional products, devices, and other therapies in this population through a combination of high-quality regulatory and clinical trials, quality improvement initiatives, and observational studies. Because there are relatively small numbers of very preterm neonates born each year in any 1 country or continent, and because a significant number of clinical trials are recruiting at any 1 time, a neonate may meet enrollment criteria for >1 clinical trial. Neonatal units that have the infrastructure and resources to engage in research frequently face the question of whether it is permissible to enroll a neonate in >1 trial. This article examines the pertinent scientific, ethical, regulatory, and industry issues that should be taken into account when considering enrolling neonates in multiple clinical studies.

Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges

Opportunities to enter patients into more than one clinical trial are not routinely considered in cancer research and experiences with co-enrolment are rarely reported. Potential benefits of allowing appropriate co-enrolment have been identified in other settings but there is a lack of evidence base or guidance to inform these decisions in oncology. Here, we discuss the benefits and challenges associated with co-enrolment based on experiences in the Add-Aspirin trial - a large, multicentre trial recruiting across a number of tumour types, where opportunities to co-enrol patients have been proactively explored and managed. The potential benefits of co-enrolment include: improving recruitment feasibility; increased opportunities for patients to participate in trials; and collection of robust data on combinations of interventions, which will ensure the ongoing relevance of individual trials and provide more cohesive evidence to guide the management of future patients. There are a number of perceived barriers to co-enrolment in terms of scientific, safety and ethical issues, which warrant consideration on a trial-by-trial basis. In many cases, any potential effect on the results of the trials will be negligible - limited by a number of factors, including the overlap in trial cohorts. Participant representatives stress the importance of autonomy to decide about trial enrolment, providing a compelling argument for offering co-enrolment where there are multiple trials that are relevant to a patient and no concerns regarding safety or the integrity of the trials. A number of measures are proposed for managing and monitoring co-enrolment. Ensuring acceptability to (potential) participants is paramount. Opportunities to enter patients into more than one cancer trial should be considered more routinely. Where planned and managed appropriately, co-enrolment can offer a number of benefits in terms of both scientific value and efficiency of study conduct, and will increase the opportunities for patients to participate in, and benefit from, clinical research.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences

This paper addresses challenges of identifying, enrolling, and retaining participants in a trial conducted within a routine care setting. All patients who are potential candidates for the treatments in routine clinical practice should be considered eligible for a pragmatic trial. To ensure generalizability, the recruited sample should have a similar distribution of the treatment effect modifiers as the target population. In practice, this can be best achieved by including-within the selected sites-all patients without further selection. If relevant heterogeneity between subgroups is expected, increasing the relative proportion of the subgroup of patients in the heterogeneous trial could be considered (oversampling) or a separate trial in this subgroup can be planned. Selection will nevertheless occur. Low enrollment and loss to follow-up can introduce selection and can jeopardize validity as well as generalizability. Pragmatic trials are conducted in clinical practice rather than in a dedicated research setting, which could reduce recruitment rates. However, if a trial poses a minimal burden to the physician and the patient and routine clinical practice is maximally adhered to, the participation rate may be high and loss to follow-up will not be a specific problem for pragmatic trials.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing the collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we will built a consent workflow using a rising technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. Additionally, it removes the need for third parties, and gives participative control to the peer-to-peer users. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain; thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each revision of the protocol, consent was sought again. We obtained a single document, in a standard open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: timestamped consent status with regards to each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted, and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered as a robust proof of data. In the future, we think that the complex data flow of a clinical trial can be tracked using Blockchain. Moreover, a blockchain core functionality, named Smart Contract, can help prevent clinical trial events not to happen in the right chronological order: including patients before they consented or analysing case report forms data before freezing the database. This will help reaching reliability, security, and transparency, and could be a consistent step towards reproducibility.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing for collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we build a consent workflow using a trending technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain, thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each protocol revision, consent was sought again.  We obtained a single document, in an open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: a time-stamped consent status regarding each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered a robust proof of data. However, in a live clinical trial, the authentication system should be strengthened to remove the need for third parties, here trial stakeholders, and give participative control to the peer users. In the future, the complex data flow of a clinical trial could be tracked by using Blockchain, which core functionality, named Smart Contract, could help prevent clinical trial events not occurring in the correct chronological order, for example including patients before they consented or analysing case report form data before freezing the database. Globally, Blockchain could help with reliability, security, transparency and could be a consistent step toward reproducibility.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing for collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we build a consent workflow using a trending technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain, thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each protocol revision, consent was sought again.  We obtained a single document, in an open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: a time-stamped consent status regarding each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered a robust proof of data. However, in a live clinical trial, the authentication system should be strengthened to remove the need for third parties, here trial stakeholders, and give participative control to the peer users. In the future, the complex data flow of a clinical trial could be tracked by using Blockchain, which core functionality, named Smart Contract, could help prevent clinical trial events not occurring in the correct chronological order, for example including patients before they consented or analysing case report form data before freezing the database. Globally, Blockchain could help with reliability, security, transparency and could be a consistent step toward reproducibility.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing the collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we will built a consent workflow using a rising technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. Additionally, it removes the need for third parties, and gives participative control to the peer-to-peer users. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain; thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each revision of the protocol, consent was sought again. We obtained a single document, in a standard open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: timestamped consent status with regards to each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted, and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered as a robust proof of data. In the future, we think that the complex data flow of a clinical trial can be tracked using Blockchain. Moreover, a blockchain core functionality, named Smart Contract, can help prevent clinical trial events not to happen in the right chronological order: including patients before they consented or analysing case report forms data before freezing the database. This will help reaching reliability, security, and transparency, and could be a consistent step towards reproducibility.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing the collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we will built a consent workflow using a rising technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain; thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each revision of the protocol, consent was sought again. We obtained a single document, in a standard open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: timestamped consent status with regards to each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted, and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered as a robust proof of data. However, in a live clinical trial, the authentication system should be strengthened in order to remove the need for third parties, here the trial stakeholders, and give participative control to the peer-to-peer users. In the future, we think that the complex data flow of a clinical trial can be tracked using Blockchain, that a blockchain core functionality, named Smart Contract, could help prevent clinical trial events not to happen in the right chronological order: for example including patients before they consented or analysing case report forms data before freezing the database. Globally, we think Blockchain will help with reliability, security, and transparency, and could be a consistent step towards reproducibility.

CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children

BACKGROUND

Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis.

SETTING

14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged < 16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data.

RESULTS

In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness - BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness - heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI -£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI -£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact - the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of > 1.2 per 1000 CVC-days.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations - inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work - adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.