Commentary: Pivoting during a pandemic: developing a new recruitment model for a randomised controlled trial in response to COVID-19

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention

BACKGROUND

Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIM

To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021.

METHOD

Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values.

RESULTS

A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

Adapting, restarting, and terminating a randomised control trial for people with cystic fibrosis: Reflections on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon research in a clinical population

Background

Habitual physical activity (PA) and exercise form a cornerstone of the management of cystic fibrosis (CF), a genetically inherited pulmonary and digestive condition - whereby telehealth platforms have been proposed as a mechanism to engage remotely people with CF in PA and exercise.

Methods

To test this, in early 2020, the 'ActivOnline: Physical Activity in Cystic Fibrosis Trial' (ActiOn PACT) randomised control trial was established to examine whether an online intervention was effective at increasing PA in adolescents and adults with CF.

Results

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forced this trial to be paused and modified, with the adoption of online recruitment and remote assessment of outcome measures. Despite such adaptations in accord with frameworks developed by the National Institute for Health Research, this trial failed to recruit and was subsequently terminated.

Conclusions

This article details the authors reflections upon the proposed reasons for lack of recruitment, including improved technology and medications for people with CF, and contextualises this finding in relation to the wider issue of non-reporting of trial results in clinical research.

Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring.

METHODS

REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022.

RESULTS

The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted.

CONCLUSION

Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Telehealth in oncology: a cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact of implementing regional trial hubs within a phase 3 cancer clinical trial

This cost analysis, from a societal perspective, compared the cost difference of a networked teletrial model (NTTM) with four regional hubs versus conventional trial operation at a single metropolitan specialist centre. The Australian phase 3 cancer interventional randomised controlled trial included 152 of 328 regional participants (patient enrolment 2018-2021; 6-month primary end point). The NTTM significantly reduced (AU$2155 per patient) patient travel cost and time and lost productivity.

Decentralized clinical trial design using blood microsampling technology for serum bioanalysis

Background: Alternatives to phlebotomy in clinical trials increase options for patients and clinicians by simplifying and increasing accessibility to clinical trials. The authors investigated the technical and logistical considerations of one technology compared with phlebotomy. Methodology: Paired samples were collected from 16 donors via a second-generation serum gel microsampling device and conventional phlebotomy. Microsamples were subject to alternative sample handling conditions and were evaluated for quality, clinical testing and proteome profiling. Results: Timely centrifugation of blood serum microsamples largely preserved analyte stability. Conclusion: Centrifugation timing of serum microsamples impacts the quality of specific clinical chemistry and protein biomarkers. Microsampling devices with remote centrifugation and refrigerated shipping can decrease patient burden, expand clinical trial populations and aid clinical decisions.

The SCRIPT trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a polygenic risk score to tailor colorectal cancer screening in primary care

Background

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation.

Methods

This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery.

Discussion

This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06734-7.