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

Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The minimum sample size for multistakeholder Delphi surveys remains understudied. Drawing from three large international multistakeholder Delphi surveys, this study aimed to: 1) investigate the effect of increasing sample size on replicability of results; 2) assess whether the level of replicability of results differed with participant characteristics: for example, gender, age, and profession.

METHODS

We used data from Delphi surveys to develop guidance for improved reporting of health-care intervention trials: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for surrogate end points (n = 175, 22 items rated); CONSORT-SPI [CONSORT extension for Social and Psychological Interventions] (n = 333, 77 items rated); and core outcome set for burn care (n = 553, 88 items rated). Resampling with replacement was used to draw random subsamples from the participant data set in each of the three surveys. For each subsample, the median value of all rated survey items was calculated and compared to the medians from the full participant data set. The median number (and interquartile range) of medians replicated was used to calculate the percentage replicability (and variability). High replicability was defined as ≥80% and moderate as 60% and <80% RESULTS: The average median replicability (variability) as a percentage of total number of items rated from the three datasets was 81% (10%) at a sample size of 60. In one of the datasets (CONSORT-SPI), a ≥80% replicability was reached at a sample size of 80. On average, increasing the sample size from 80 to 160 increased the replicability of results by a further 3% and reduced variability by 1%. For subgroup analysis based on participant characteristics (eg, gender, age, professional role), using resampled samples of 20 to 100 showed that a sample size of 20 to 30 resulted to moderate replicability levels of 64% to 77%.

CONCLUSION

We found that a minimum sample size of 60-80 participants in multistakeholder Delphi surveys provides a high level of replicability (≥80%) in the results. For Delphi studies limited to individual stakeholder groups (such as researchers, clinicians, patients), a sample size of 20 to 30 per group may be sufficient.

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.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials.

CONCLUSION

With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD): Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) is a quality improvement intervention designed to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. We conducted a cluster-randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the intervention versus usual care on completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

OBJECTIVE

To prespecify the statistical analysis plan for the EnAKT LKD trial.

DESIGN

The EnAKT LKD trial is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized, superiority, clinical trial. Randomization was performed at the level of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (the "clusters").

SETTING

Twenty-six CKD programs in Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

More than 10 000 patients with advanced CKD (ie, patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis) with no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant.

METHODS

The trial data (including patient characteristics and outcomes) will be obtained from linked administrative health care databases (the "registry"). Stratified covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 26 CKD programs (1:1) to provide the intervention or usual care from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (4.17 years). CKD programs in the intervention arm received the following: (1) support for local quality improvement teams and administrative needs; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome is completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant, where up to 4 unique steps per patient will be considered: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) a potential living kidney donor begins their evaluation at a transplant center to donate a kidney to the patient, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant waitlist, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor.

ANALYSIS PLAN

Using an intent-to-treat approach, the primary outcome will be analyzed using a patient-level constrained multistate model adjusting for the clustering in CKD programs.

TRIAL STATUS

The EnAKT LKD trial period is November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report the results once the data for the trial period is available in linked administrative health care databases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The EnAKT LKD trial is registered with the U.S. National Institute of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT03329521 available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03329521).

STATISTICAL ANALYTIC PLAN

Version 1.0 August 26, 2022.

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Reporting transparency and completeness in trials: Paper 4 - reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using routinely collected electronic records - room for improvement

OBJECTIVE

To describe characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), including completeness and transparency of reporting assessed against the 2021 CONSORT Extension for RCTs Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

MEDLINE and Cochrane Methodology Register were searched for a sample of RCTs published from 2011-2018. Completeness of reporting was assessed in a random sample using a pre-defined coding form.

RESULTS

Of the 183 RCT publications identified, 122 (67%) used EHRs to identify eligible participants, 139 (76%) used the EHR as part of the intervention and 137 (75%) to ascertain outcomes. When 60 publications were evaluated against the CONSORT 2010 item and the corresponding extension for the 8 modified items, four items were 'adequately reported' for most trials. Five new reporting items were identified for the CONSORT-ROUTINE extension; when evaluated, one was 'adequately reported', three were reported 'inadequately or not at all', the other 'partially'. There were, however, some encouraging signs with adequate and partial reporting of many important items, including descriptions of trial design, the consent process, outcome ascertainment and interpretation.

CONCLUSION

Aspects of RCTs using EHRs are sub-optimally reported. Uptake of the CONSORT-ROUTINE Extension may improve reporting.

MyTEMP: Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) is a 4-year cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of using a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol versus a dialysate temperature of 36.5°C on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalization. Randomization was performed at the level of the dialysis center (“the cluster”).

Objective:

The objective is to outline the statistical analysis plan for the MyTEMP trial.

Design:

MyTEMP is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized trial.

Setting:

A total of 84 dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada.

Patients:

Approximately 13 500 patients will have received in-center hemodialysis at the 84 participating dialysis centers during the trial period (April 3, 2017, to March 1, 2021, with a maximum follow-up to March 31, 2021).

Methods:

Patient identification, baseline characteristics, and study outcomes will be obtained primarily through Ontario administrative health care databases held at ICES. Covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 84 dialysis centers (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group. Centers in the intervention group used a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol, and centers in the control group used a fixed dialysate temperature of 36.5°C.

Outcomes:

The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (defined as a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) recorded in administrative health care databases. The key secondary outcome is the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure, defined as the patients’ predialysis systolic blood pressure minus their nadir systolic blood pressure during the dialysis treatment. Anonymized data on patients’ predialysis and intradialytic systolic blood pressure were collected at monthly intervals from each dialysis center.

Analysis plan:

The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The primary outcome will be analyzed at the patient level as the hazard ratio of time-to-first event, estimated from a subdistribution hazards model. Within-center correlation will be accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator. In the primary analysis, patients’ observation time will end if they experience the primary outcome, emigrate from Ontario, or die of a noncardiovascular cause (which will be treated as a competing risk event). The between-group difference in the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure obtained during the dialysis sessions throughout the trial period will be analyzed at the center level using an unadjusted random-effects linear mixed model.

Trial status:

The MyTEMP trial period is April 3, 2017, to March 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report results by 2023 once the updated data are available at ICES.

Trial registration:

MyTEMP is registered with the US National Institutes of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366).

Statistical analytic plan:

Version 1.1 June 15, 2021.

A study protocol for the development of a SPIRIT extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (SPIRIT-ROUTINE)

Background: Protocols are an essential document for conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the completeness of the information provided is often inadequate. To help improve the content of trial protocols, an international group of stakeholders published the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Initiative in 2013. Presently, there is increasing use of cohorts and routinely collected data (RCD) for RCTs because these data have the potential to improve efficiencies by facilitating recruitment, simplifying, and reducing the cost of data collection. Reporting guidelines have been shown to improve the quality of reporting, but there is currently no specific SPIRIT guidance on protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. This protocol outlines steps for developing SPIRIT-ROUTINE, which aims to address this gap by extending the SPIRIT guidance to protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD.  Methods: The development of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension comprises five stages. Stage 1 consists of a project launch and a meeting to finalise the membership of the steering group and scope of the extension. In Stage 2, a rapid review will be performed to identify possible modifications to the original SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Other key reporting guidelines will be reviewed to identify areas where additional items may be needed, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Stage 3 will involve an online Delphi exercise, consisting of two rounds and involving key international stakeholders to gather feedback on the preliminary checklist items. In Stage 4, a consensus meeting of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE steering group will finalise the items to include in the extension. Stage 5 will involve the publication preparation and dissemination of the final checklist.  Conclusion: The SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension will contribute to improving design of trials using cohorts and RCD and transparency of reporting.

Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions.

RESULTS

Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values.

DISCUSSION

Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use.

Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE)

OBJECTIVES

Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist.

METHODS

The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist.

RESULTS

27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data.

Treatment effects in randomised trials using routinely collected data for outcome assessment versus traditional trials: meta-research study

OBJECTIVE

To compare effect estimates of randomised clinical trials that use routinely collected data (RCD-RCT) for outcome ascertainment with traditional trials not using routinely collected data.

DESIGN

Meta-research study.

DATA SOURCE

Studies included in the same meta-analysis in a Cochrane review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials using any type of routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment, including from registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, that were included in a meta-analysis of a Cochrane review on any clinical question and any health outcome together with traditional trials not using routinely collected data for outcome measurement.

REVIEW METHODS

Effect estimates from trials using or not using routinely collected data were summarised in random effects meta-analyses. Agreement of (summary) treatment effect estimates from trials using routinely collected data and those not using such data was expressed as the ratio of odds ratios. Subgroup analyses explored effects in trials based on different types of routinely collected data. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of each data source.

RESULTS

84 RCD-RCTs and 463 traditional trials on 22 clinical questions were included. Trials using routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment showed 20% less favourable treatment effect estimates than traditional trials (ratio of odds ratios 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.91, I2=14%). Results were similar across various types of outcomes (mortality outcomes: 0.92, 0.74 to 1.15, I2=12%; non-mortality outcomes: 0.71, 0.60 to 0.84, I2=8%), data sources (electronic health records: 0.81, 0.59 to 1.11, I2=28%; registries: 0.86, 0.75 to 0.99, I2=20%; administrative data: 0.84, 0.72 to 0.99, I2=0%), and data quality (high data quality: 0.82, 0.72 to 0.93, I2=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials using routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment show smaller treatment benefits than traditional trials not using routinely collected data. These differences could have implications for healthcare decision making and the application of real world evidence.

The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage Specific Recommendations for Reporting the Evaluation of Surgical Innovation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to define reporting standards for IDEAL format studies.

BACKGROUND

The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations establish an integrated pathway for evaluation of new surgical techniques and complex therapeutic technologies. However guidance on implementation has been incomplete, and incorrect use is commonly seen. We describe the consensus development of reporting guidelines for the IDEAL stages, and plans for their dissemination and evaluation.

METHODS

Using the EQUATOR Network recommendations, participants with knowledge of IDEAL were surveyed to determine which IDEAL stages needed reporting guidelines. Draft checklists for stages 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 were subsequently developed by 3 researchers (N.B., A.H., P.M.), and revised through a 2-round Delphi consensus process. A final consensus teleconference resolved outstanding disagreements and clarified wording for checklist items.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants completed the initial survey, a clear majority indicating that new reporting guidelines were needed for IDEAL Stage 1 (69.5%), Stage 2a (78%), Stage 2b (74.6%), and Stage 4 (66%). A proposed set of checklists was modified by survey participants in 2 online Delphi rounds (n = 54 and n = 47, respectively), resulting in a penultimate checklist for each stage. Fourteen expert working group members finalized the checklist items and successfully resolved any outstanding areas without agreement on a consensus call.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants familiar with IDEAL called for reporting guidelines for studies in all IDEAL stages except stage 3. The checklists developed have the potential to improve standards of reporting and thereby advance the quality of research on surgery and complex interventions and technologies, but require further evaluation in use.

Integrating trials into a whole-population cohort of children and parents: statement of intent (trials) for the Generation Victoria (GenV) cohort

Background

Very large cohorts that span an entire population raise new prospects for the conduct of multiple trials that speed up advances in prevention or treatment while reducing participant, financial and regulatory burden. However, a review of literature reveals no blueprint to guide this systematically in practice. This Statement of Intent proposes how diverse trials may be integrated within or alongside Generation Victoria (GenV), a whole-of-state Australian birth cohort in planning, and delineates potential processes and opportunities.

Methods

Parents of all newborns (estimated 160,000) in the state of Victoria, Australia, will be approached for two full years from 2021. The cohort design comprises four elements: (1) consent soon after birth to follow the child and parent/s until study end or withdrawal; retrospective and prospective (2) linkage to clinical and administrative datasets and (3) banking of universal and clinical biosamples; and (4) GenV-collected biosamples and data. GenV-collected data will focus on overarching outcome and phenotypic measures using low-burden, universal-capable electronic interfaces, with funding-dependent face-to-face assessments tailored to universal settings during the early childhood, school and/or adult years.

Results

For population or registry-type trials within GenV, GenV will provide all outcomes data and consent via traditional, waiver, or Trials Within Cohorts models. Trials alongside GenV consent their own participants born within the GenV window; GenV may help identify potential participants via opt-in or opt-out expression of interest. Data sharing enriches trials with outcomes, prior data, and/or access to linked data contingent on custodian’s agreements, and supports modeling of causal effects to the population and between-trials comparisons of costs, benefits and utility. Data access will operate under the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) and Care and Five Safes Principles. We consider governance, ethical and shared trial oversight, and expectations that trials will adhere to the best practice of the day.

Conclusions

Children and younger adults can access fewer trials than older adults. Integrating trials into mega-cohorts should improve health and well-being by generating faster, larger-scale evidence on a longer and/or broader horizon than previously possible. GenV will explore the limits and details of this approach over the coming years.

Protocol for a partially nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the scleroderma patient-centered intervention network COVID-19 home-isolation activities together (SPIN-CHAT) program to reduce anxiety among at-risk scleroderma patients

OBJECTIVE

Contagious disease outbreaks and related restrictions can lead to negative psychological outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested interventions to reduce mental health consequences of contagious disease outbreaks. The primary objective of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Trial is to evaluate the effect of a videoconference-based program on symptoms of anxiety. Secondary objectives include evaluating effects on symptoms of depression, stress, loneliness, boredom, physical activity, and social interaction.

METHODS

The SPIN-CHAT Trial is a pragmatic RCT that will be conducted using the SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort, a sub-cohort of the SPIN Cohort. Eligible participants will be SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort participants without a positive COVID-19 test, with at least mild anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0 T-score ≥ 55), not working from home, and not receiving current counselling or psychotherapy. We will randomly assign 162 participants to intervention groups of 7 to 10 participants each or waitlist control. We will use a partially nested RCT design to reflect dependence between individuals in training groups but not in the waitlist control. The SPIN-CHAT Program includes activity engagement, education on strategies to support mental health, and mutual participant support. Intervention participants will receive the 4-week (3 sessions per week) SPIN-CHAT Program via videoconference. The primary outcome is PROMIS Anxiety 4a score immediately post-intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The SPIN-CHAT Trial will test whether a brief videoconference-based intervention will improve mental health outcomes among at-risk individuals during contagious disease outbreak.

Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

Background

Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.

Methods

A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.

Results

We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.

Conclusion

RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.

Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019123088.

Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data (RCHD) for at least one outcome were included. RCHD sources and outcome information were extracted. Of 216 RCTs, 102 (47%) planned to use RCHD. A RCHD source was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 (45%) of those 102 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort (NIHR HTA funded trials that had a protocol available) plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources.

Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data.

Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data (RCHD) for at least one outcome were included. RCHD sources and outcome information were extracted.

Of 216 RCTs, 102 (47%) planned to use RCHD. A RCHD source was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 (45%) of those 102 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use.

Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort (NIHR HTA funded trials that had a protocol available) plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources.

The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a rare disease that often results in significant disruptions to activities of daily living and can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being. Because there is no known cure, SSc treatment focuses on reducing symptoms and disability and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Self-management programs are known to increase self-efficacy for disease management in many chronic diseases. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed a Web-based self-management program (SPIN self-management; SPIN-SELF) to increase self-efficacy for disease management and to improve HRQoL for patients with SSc.

OBJECTIVE

The proposed study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF program by evaluating the trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and participant acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program.

METHODS

The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will be conducted via the SPIN Cohort. The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cohort multiple RCT design. In total, 40 English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants with low disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale score ≤7), who have indicated interest in using a Web-based self-management program, will be randomized with a 3:2 ratio into the SPIN-SELF program or usual care for 3 months. Feasibility outcomes include trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and patient acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program.

RESULTS

Enrollment of the 40 participants occurred between July 5, 2019, and July 27, 2019. By November 25, 2019, data collection of trial outcomes was completed. Data analysis is underway, and results are expected to be published in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPIN-SELF program is a self-help tool that may improve disease-management self-efficacy and improve HRQoL in patients with SSc. The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will ensure that trial methodology is robust, feasible, and consistent with trial participant expectations. The results will guide adjustments that need to be implemented before undertaking a full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF program.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/16799.

Don’t abandon RCTs in IVF. We don’t even understand them

The conclusion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that ‘add-on’ therapies in IVF are not supported by high-quality evidence has prompted new questions regarding the role of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) in evaluating infertility treatments. Critics argue that trials are cumbersome tools that provide irrelevant answers. Instead, they argue that greater emphasis should be placed on large observational databases, which can be analysed using powerful algorithms to determine which treatments work and for whom. Although the validity of these arguments rests upon the sciences of statistics and epidemiology, the discussion to date has largely been conducted without reference to these fields. We aim to remedy this omission, by evaluating the arguments against RCTs in IVF from a primarily methodological perspective. We suggest that, while criticism of the status quo is warranted, a retreat from RCTs is more likely to make things worse for patients and clinicians.

Technology-Enabled Clinical Trials

The complexity and costs associated with traditional randomized, controlled trials have increased exponentially over time, and now threaten to stifle the development of new drugs and devices. Nevertheless, the growing use of electronic health records, mobile applications, and wearable devices offers significant promise for transforming clinical trials, making them more pragmatic and efficient. However, many challenges must be overcome before these innovations can be implemented routinely in randomized, controlled trial operations. In October of 2018, a diverse stakeholder group convened in Washington, DC, to examine how electronic health record, mobile, and wearable technologies could be applied to clinical trials. The group specifically examined how these technologies might streamline the execution of clinical trial components, delineated innovative trial designs facilitated by technological developments, identified barriers to implementation, and determined the optimal frameworks needed for regulatory oversight. The group concluded that the application of novel technologies to clinical trials provided enormous potential, yet these changes needed to be iterative and facilitated by continuous learning and pilot studies.