Depressed patients treated by homeopaths: a randomised controlled trial using the "cohort multiple randomised controlled trial" (cmRCT) design

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.

A Systematic Review of the Statistical Methods Adopted for Analyzing Follow-Up Data in Cohort Multiple Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) can tackle some of the weaknesses of an RCT which has triggered the interest of researchers considerably over time. Several challenges persist regarding the methods of analyzing such valued data. The paucity of international recommendations concerning the statistical methods for analyzing trial data has led to a variety of strategies further complicating the result comparison. Our aim was to review the different cmRCT analysis methods since cmRCT was first proposed in 2010.

METHODOLOGY

A search for full-length studies presenting statistical analysis of the data collected adopting a cmRCT design was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, JSTOR, Scopus, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESULTS

Out of 186 studies screened, we selected 22 for the full-text screening and 11 were found eligible for data extraction. All 11 studies were conducted in high-income countries, reflecting the design being underutilized in other settings. All of the studies were found to have used intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with four of them utilizing instrumental variables (IV) analysis or a complier average causal effect (CACE). Randomization was noted often to be interchangeably used for random selection. Sample size calculation was not clearly specified in the majority of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Clarity regarding the distinction between an RCT and a cmRCT is warranted. The fundamental difference in design, which leads to certain biases that need to be taken care of by adopting IV or CACE analysis, has to be understood before taking up a cmRCT.

EMDR for symptoms of depression, stress and burnout in health care workers exposed to COVID-19 (HARD): A study protocol for a trial within a cohort study

Background: Stressful events during a pandemic are a major cause of serious health problems, such as burnout, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health care workers (HCWs). During three years, HCWs, on the frontline to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, have been at an increased risk of high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, burnout and PTSD. Regarding potential psychological interventions, Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing (EMDR) is a structured, strongly recommended therapy based on its well-known efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms and anxiety.Objectives: This study, designed as a trial within a cohort (TwiC), aims to 1) estimate the prevalence of depression, burnout and PTSD in a sample of HCWs after experiencing the COVID-19 emergency (cohort part) and 2) assess the efficacy and acceptability of 'EMDR + usual care' for HCWs from the cohort who report significant psychological symptoms (trial part).Methods: The study, designed as a TwiC, consists of a prospective cohort study (n = 3000) with an embedded, pragmatic, randomized open-label superiority trial with two groups (n = 900). Participants included in the trial part are HCWs recruited for the cohort with significant symptoms on at least one psychological dimension (depression, burnout, PTSD) at baseline, 3 months or 6 months, determined by using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, and PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5). The intervention consists of 12 separate EMDR sessions with a certified therapist. The control group receives usual care. The trial has three primary outcomes: changes in depression, burnout and PTSD scores from randomization to 6 months. All participants are followed up for 12 months.Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the mental health burden it places on HCWs and assesses the effectiveness of EMDR as a psychological intervention.Trial registration NCT04570202.

Recommendations in the design and conduction of randomised controlled trials in human and veterinary homeopathic medicine

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are an established research method to investigate the effects of an intervention. Several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs with homeopathic interventions have identified shortcomings in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of trials. Guidelines for RCTs in homeopathic medicine are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to fill this gap in order to enhance the quality of RCTs in the field of homeopathy.

METHODS

Identification of the homeopathy-specific requirements for RCTs by reviewing literature and experts' communications. Systematization of the findings using a suitable checklist for planning, conducting, and reporting RCTs, namely the SPIRIT statement, and high-quality homeopathy RCTs as examples. Cross-checking of the created checklist with the RedHot-criteria, the PRECIS criteria, and a qualitative evaluation checklist. Consideration of the REFLECT statement and the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 for veterinary homeopathy.

RESULTS

Recommendations for future implementation of RCTs in homeopathy are summarized in a checklist. Alongside, identified useful solutions to the issues encountered when designing and conducting homeopathy RCTs are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

The formulated recommendations present guidelines additional to those in the SPIRIT checklist, on how to better plan, design, conduct, and report RCTs in homeopathy.

Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based self-guided hand exercise program to improve hand function in people with systemic sclerosis: the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Hand Exercise Program (SPIN-HAND) trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. Functional impairment of hands is common. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN)-HAND trial compared effects of offering access to an online self-guided hand exercise program to usual care on hand function (primary) and functional health outcomes (secondary) in people with SSc with at least mild hand function limitations.

METHODS

The pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group cohort multiple randomized controlled trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort. Cohort participants with Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS) scores ≥ 3 and who indicated interest in using the SPIN-HAND Program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to an offer of program access or to usual care (targeted N = 586). The SPIN-HAND program consists of 4 modules that address (1) thumb flexibility and strength; (2) finger bending; (3) finger extension; and (4) wrist flexibility and strength. The primary outcome analysis compared CHFS scores 3 months post-randomization between participants offered versus not offered the program. Secondary outcomes were CHFS scores 6 months post-randomization and functional health outcomes (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System profile version 2.0 domain scores) 3 and 6 months post-randomization.

RESULTS

In total, 466 participants were randomized to intervention offer (N = 280) or usual care (N = 186). Of 280 participants offered the intervention, 170 (61%) consented to access the program. Of these, 117 (69%) viewed at least one hand exercise instruction video and 77 (45%) logged into the program website at least 3 times. In intent-to-treat analyses, CHFS scores were 1.2 points lower (95% CI - 2.8 to 0.3) for intervention compared to usual care 3 months post-randomization and 0.1 points lower (95% CI - 1.8 to 1.6 points) 6 months post-randomization. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The offer to use the SPIN-HAND Program did not improve hand function. Low offer uptake, program access, and minimal usage among those who accessed the program limited our ability to determine if using the program would improve function. To improve engagement, the program could be tested in a group format or as a resource to support care provided by a physical or occupational therapist.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03419208 . Registered on February 1, 2018.

Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND)

Purpose

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) online hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND), is an online self-help program of hand exercises designed to improve hand function for people with scleroderma. The objective of this feasibility trial was to evaluate aspects of feasibility for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of the SPIN-HAND program.

Materials and Methods

The feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN cohort and utilized the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. In the cmRCT design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about trials conducted using the cohort. When trials were conducted in the cohort, participants randomized to the intervention were informed and consented to access the intervention. Participants randomized to control were not informed that they have not received an intervention. All participants eligible and randomized to participate in the trial were included in analyses on an intent-to-treat basis. Cohort participants with a Cochin Hand Function Scale score ≥ 3/90 and an interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention were randomized (1:1 ratio) to be offered as usual care plus the SPIN-HAND Program or usual care for 3 months. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews.

Results

Of the 40 randomized participants, 24 were allocated to SPIN-HAND and 16 to usual care. Of 24 participants randomized to be offered SPIN-HAND, 15 (63%) consented to use the program. Usage of SPIN-HAND content among the 15 participants who consented to use the program was low; only five (33%) logged in more than twice. Participants found the content relevant and easy to understand (satisfaction rating 8.5/10, N = 6). Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly. The required technical support was minimal.

Conclusions

Trial methodology functioned as designed, and the SPIN-HAND Program was feasibly delivered; however, the acceptance of the offer and use of program content among accepters were low. Adjustments to information provided to potential participants will be implemented in the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial to attempt to increase offer acceptance.

Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program

BACKGROUND

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed an online self-management program (SPIN-SELF) designed to improve disease-management self-efficacy in people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, or scleroderma). The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility aspects for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF Program.

METHODS

This feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort and utilized the cohort multiple RCT design. In this design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about the trial. Participants in the intervention arm are informed and provide consent, but not the control group. Forty English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants from Canada, the USA, or the UK with low disease-management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale [SEMCD] score ≤ 7) who were interested in using an online self-management program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to be offered the SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. Program usage was examined via automated usage logs. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews. Trial personnel time requirements and implementation challenges were logged.

RESULTS

Of 40 SPIN Cohort participants randomized, 26 were allocated to SPIN-SELF and 14 to usual care. Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly, except that two participants with SEMCD scores > 7 (scores of 7.2 and 7.3, respectively) were included, which was caused by a system programming error that rounded SEMCD scores. Of 26 SPIN Cohort participants offered the SPIN-SELF Program, only 9 (35%) consented to use the program. Usage logs showed that use of the SPIN-SELF Program was low: 2 of 9 users (22%) logged into the program only once (median = 3), and 4 of 9 (44%) accessed none or only 1 of the 9 program's modules (median = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will lead to substantial changes for the planned full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF Program that we will incorporate into a planned additional feasibility trial with progression to a full-scale trial. These changes include transitioning to a conventional RCT design with pre-randomization consent and supplementing the online self-help with peer-facilitated videoconference-based groups to enhance engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03914781 . Registered 16 April 2019.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary).

METHODS

This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort ( http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort ) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited.

DISCUSSION

The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04246528 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

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.

Homeopathic Remedies in Psychiatric Disorders: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Homeopathy is a complementary and alternative medicine. Conclusive evidence on the plausibility, efficacy, and safety of these treatments is not currently available. Nonetheless, homeopathic remedies (HRs) are widespread throughout the world and especially in mental disorders. The aim is to assess the efficacy of HRs in the treatment of mental disorders.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

We performed a Medline/Embase search for studies written in English and published from any date to October 23, 2018. All randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with any psychiatric disorder and comparing HR with placebo, no treatment, or other psychotropic drugs were included.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

A total of 212 studies were screened, 9 met all selection criteria and reported data on major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 4), generalized anxiety disorder (n = 1), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n = 2), and premenstrual syndrome/dysphoric disorder (n = 2). Eight of 9 randomized controlled trials showed high risk of bias. Homeopathy showed greater efficacy in MDD compared with fluoxetine, and in premenstrual syndrome/dysphoric disorder compared with placebo, whereas no difference emerged between homeopathy and placebo in MDD and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Available data on homeopathy in psychiatric disorders are insufficient to support their use in clinical practice.

The trials within cohorts design facilitated efficient patient enrollment and generalizability in oncology setting

OBJECTIVES

The trials within cohorts (TwiCs) design aims to improve recruitment efficiency. We conducted the first TwiCs in radiation oncology and described efficiency of the design and generalizability of the results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In two radiotherapy centers, patients with rectal cancer were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study and to provide broad consent for randomization and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consenting patients who met the trial criteria were randomized directly after cohort enrollment. The intervention arm was offered a radiotherapy boost. We evaluated acceptance rate, its impact on sample size, and compared clinical characteristics between trial participants and patients of the Dutch national cancer registry.

RESULTS

128 of the 200 eligible patients (64%) were randomized. Sixty-two patients did not consent (in time) to cohort participation, to broad randomization, or to PROs. Of the 64 patients in the intervention arm, 52 (81%) accepted the intervention. During the trial, the acceptance rate dropped temporarily, after which sample size was adapted. Trial patients were comparable in age, comorbidity, and disease stage to the national rectal cancer population.

CONCLUSIONS

The TwiCs design is feasible, allows enrollment of a high proportion of randomizable patients, with positive impact on trial efficiency and generalizability of results in a clinical oncology setting.

The Trials within Cohorts design faced methodological advantages and disadvantages in the exercise oncology setting

OBJECTIVES

The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design is an alternative for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and might overcome disadvantages such as difficult recruitment, dropout after randomization to control, and contamination. We investigated the applicability of the TwiCs design in an exercise oncology study regarding the recruitment process, representativeness of the study sample, contamination, participation, and dropout.

METHODS

The Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion (UMBRELLA) Fit TwiCs evaluates an exercise intervention in inactive breast cancer patients. Eligible patients participating in the prospective UMBRELLA were identified and randomized. Patients randomized to the intervention (n = 130) were offered the intervention, whereas controls (n = 130) were not informed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent (n = 68) accepted the intervention. Because this rate was lower than expected, a larger sample size was required than initially estimated (n = 166). However, recruitment of 260 patients was still completed by one researcher within 30 months. Unselective eligibility screening and randomization before invitation improved representativeness. Disadvantage of the design might be inclusion of ineligible patients when cohort information is limited. Furthermore, the design faced higher noncompliance in the intervention group, but prevention of contamination.

CONCLUSION

The TwiCs design improved logistics in recruitment and prevented contamination, but noncompliance due to refusal of the intervention was higher compared with conventional pragmatic exercise oncology RCTs, which may dilute the estimated intervention effect.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often complex and expensive to perform. Less than one third achieve planned recruitment targets, follow-up can be labor-intensive, and many have limited real-world generalizability. Designs for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, have been proposed to address these challenges and are being rapidly adopted. These designs, however, are relatively recent innovations, and published RCT reports often do not describe important aspects of their methodology in a standardized way. Our objective is to extend the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement with a consensus-driven reporting guideline for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

METHODS

The development of this CONSORT extension will consist of five phases. Phase 1 (completed) consisted of the project launch, including fundraising, the establishment of a research team, and development of a conceptual framework. In phase 2, a systematic review will be performed to identify publications (1) that describe methods or reporting considerations for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data or (2) that are protocols or report results from such RCTs. An initial "long list" of possible modifications to CONSORT checklist items and possible new items for the reporting guideline will be generated based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Additional possible modifications and new items will be identified based on the results of the systematic review. Phase 3 will consist of a three-round Delphi exercise with methods and content experts to evaluate the "long list" and generate a "short list" of key items. In phase 4, these items will serve as the basis for an in-person consensus meeting to finalize a core set of items to be included in the reporting guideline and checklist. Phase 5 will involve drafting the checklist and elaboration-explanation documents, and dissemination and implementation of the guideline.

DISCUSSION

Development of this CONSORT extension will contribute to more transparent reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.