Determinants of a subject's decision to participate in clinical anesthesia research

How Many Patients Do We Need? Predictors of Consent to Participate in Clinical Research Studies in Orthopaedic Trauma

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the recruitment rates at a Level I trauma center enroling for multiple prospective orthopaedic trauma research studies and identify patient-related and study-related predictors of consent.

DESIGN

We conducted a case-control study to identify predictors of study consent. The authors categorized studies based on intensity of the study intervention (low, intermediate, or high). A 2-level generalized linear model with random intercept for study was used to predict study consent.

SETTING

This analysis includes data from 10 federally funded studies conducted as part of a large, national consortium that were enroling patients in 2013-2014.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred thirty-four patients were approached for at least 1 study and included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

N/A.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consent to participate in the research study.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients consented to be in a study (71% of approached patients). Consent rate varied by study (45%-95%). No patient characteristics (race, age, or sex) were associated with consent. Patients approached for studies of intermediate intensity were 83% less likely to consent (odds ratio = 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.67), and those approached for studies of high intensity were 91% less likely to consent (odds ratio = 0.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.32).

CONCLUSION

Patient factors were not associated with consent. Study intensity is a major driver of consent rates. Studies of higher intensity will require the study team to approach up to twice as many patients as the target enrolment. This study provides a framework that can be used in study planning and determination of feasibility.

Factors associated with patient willingness to participate in anaesthesia clinical trials: a vignette-based cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical trials are essential to improve knowledge of anesthesia and perioperative medicine. Unfortunately, many studies face participant-recruitment issues and fail to include the planned number of participants. There is limited published data about how information delivered about the study or how the experiences and attitudes of prospective participants influence willingness to participate. The purpose of this study was to identify such factors in the domain of anesthesia care.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study at the Geneva University Hospitals (Switzerland) using a newly developed paper-based questionnaire on a sample of outpatients with a recent hospital stay and that were aged over 18 years, confident speaking French and free of any disease that could hinder participation. We explored patient personal factors, such as current health, past exposure to clinical research and anesthesia, as well as study-related factors. Six different scenarios for clinical studies were assessed. Linear regression modeling was used to assess the specific association between personal and study-related factors and willingness to participate in the studies described in the scenarios.

Results

On the 1318 eligible patients, 398 fully completed the questionnaire. Multivariable adjustment revealed that factors related to altruistic values (β, 9.6, 95% CI 3.4 to 15.7, P = 0.002), to the feeling of benefiting from a more effective treatment (β, 4.7, 95% CI 0.2 to 9.2, P = 0.041) and to the absence of fear about double blinding (β, 5.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 10.2, P = 0.012) were positively associated with willingness to participate. Conversely, concerns about drug-related adverse effects (β, − 11.7, 95% CI − 16.9 to − 6.5, P < 0.001) and anxiety about surgery (β, − 5.2, 95% CI − 10.0 to − 0.5, P = 0.031) were negatively associated with willingness to participate.

Conclusion

Our study was based on vignettes illustrating typical scenarios of clinical trials performed in anesthesia. However, their similarities with real studies still remains hypothetical and our results should be interpreted as such. Nevertheless, the study contributes to improve understanding of factors that may act as incentives or barriers to participation in clinical trials. It highlights the importance of providing appropriate information and reassurance to patients.

PIRATE project: point-of-care, informatics-based randomised controlled trial for decreasing overuse of antibiotic therapy in Gram-negative bacteraemia

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic overuse drives antibiotic resistance. The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bacteraemia (GNB), a common community and hospital-associated infection, remains unknown and unstudied via randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This investigator-initiated, multicentre, non-inferiority, informatics-based point-of-care RCT will randomly assign adult hospitalised patients receiving microbiologically efficacious antibiotic(s) for GNB to (1) 14 days of antibiotic therapy, (2) 7 days of therapy or (3) an individualised duration determined by clinical response and 75% reduction in peak C reactive protein (CRP) values. The randomisation will occur in equal proportions (1:1:1) on day 5 (±1) of efficacious antibiotic therapy as determined by antibiogram; patients, their physicians and study investigators will be blind to treatment duration allocation until the day of antibiotic discontinuation. Immunosuppressed patients and those with GNB due to complicated infections (endocarditis, osteomyelitis, etc) and/or non-fermenting bacilli (Acinetobacter spp, Burkholderia spp, Pseudomonas spp) Brucella spp, Fusobacterium spp or polymicrobial growth with Gram-positive organisms will be ineligible. The primary outcome is incidence of clinical failure at day 30; secondary outcomes include clinical failure, all-cause mortality and incidence of Clostridiumdifficile infection in the 90-day study period. An interim safety analysis will be performed after the first 150 patients have been followed for ≤30 days. Given a chosen margin of 10%, the required sample size to determine non-inferiority is roughly 500 patients. Analyses will be performed on both intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the cantonal ethics committees of all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03101072; pre-results).

Generalizability analysis for clinical trials: a simulation study

Subjects are rarely selected on a random basis from a well-defined patient population of interest into a clinical trial, with women, children, the elderly, and those with common comorbidities who are frequently underrepresented. Decades of clinical experience have demonstrated that the application of trial findings to individual patients is permissible by using efficacy as a measure of effectiveness and assuming that the characteristics of patients are sufficiently similar. In order to investigate this issue in greater depth, we simulated a patient population with treatment effect size of 0.5 (Cohen's d) and five covariates that included gender, health insurance, comorbidity, age, and motivation. To demonstrate how selection of patients for a clinical trial can bias the results when treatment effect varies across individuals, we created 50 nonrandom clinical trials based on this patient population and showed relative bias to range from 1.68% to 99.70%. We calculated and evaluated three indexes: C-statistics, standardized mean difference (SMD), and Tipton's index (β) of generalization for the 50 nonrandom trials. Findings indicated that (i) the ranges were 0.56-0.98, 0.23-11.17, and 0.99-0.73 for C-statistics, SMD, and β, respectively, when treatment effect bias increased from 1.68% to 99.70% and (ii) C-statistics < 0.86, SMD < 1.95, and β > 0.91 when treatment effect bias <50%. Recommendations are made using existing generalization indexes on the basis of our simulation results. An example from a real clinical trial is provided for illustration. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

French academic's views on financial compensation of participants

BACKGROUND

Whether and how participants in biomedical research should receive financial compensation is debated. We wished to explore how this issue was perceived by French professionals, focusing on different conditions of research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed referent responders of Clinical Investigation Centres, Research Ethics Committees and hospital administrative departments for clinical research, via referent responders who completed an online questionnaire on behalf of their respective teams. Financial compensation was addressed in terms of general perception, justifications, interpretation of French law, concrete clinical situations and compensation of incurred expenses. Descriptive analyses and correlations were carried out based on scalar responses.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was answered by 54/116 (45·6%) centres. The ethical aspects of compensation were viewed differently by Clinical Investigation Centres and Research Ethics Committees, whereas the practical aspects were viewed similarly. Agreement to compensation for patients was lower than for healthy volunteers (74·1 vs. 98·2%). The most frequently cited justifications for compensation apart from the inconveniences of research were the potential risk and the absence of medical benefit. Most of the proposed expenses incurred were to be compensated, but agreement to reimbursement of petrol bills or childcare expense was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some of the responses align with previous surveys in other countries, this information may help French professionals to harmonise their practices. We also addressed practical issues which could be studied in other European countries, for professionals and participants. Finally, the reluctance to compensate patients requires further study, taking into account welfare environment and consequences for recruitment.

Consent for Anesthesia Clinical Trials on the Day of Surgery

Background

Opportunities for anesthesia research investigators to obtain consent for clinical trials are often restricted to the day of surgery, which may limit the ability of subjects to freely decide about research participation. The aim of this study was to determine whether subjects providing same-day informed consent for anesthesia research are comfortable doing so.

Methods

A 25-question survey was distributed to 200 subjects providing informed consent for one of two low-risk clinical trials. While consent on the day of surgery was permitted for both studies, a preadmission telephone call was required for one. The questionnaire was provided to each subject at the time of discharge from the hospital. The questions were structured to assess six domains relating to the consent process, and each question was graded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Overall satisfaction with same-day consent was assessed using an 11-point scale with 0 = extremely dissatisfied and 10 = extremely satisfied.

Results

Completed questionnaires were received from 129 subjects. Median scores for satisfaction with the consent process were 9.5 to 10. Most respondents reported that the protocol was well explained and comprehended and that the setting in which consent was obtained was appropriate (median score of 5). Most patients strongly disagreed that they were anxious at the time of consent, felt obligated to participate, or had regrets about participation (median score of 1). Ten percent or less of subjects reported negative responses to any of the questions, and no differences were observed between the study groups.

Conclusion

More than 96% of subjects who provided same-day informed consent for low-risk research were satisfied with the consent process.