The Influence of COVID-19 on Clinical Trial Discontinuation in Anesthesiology: Cross-Sectional Analysis

The death of a neurotrauma trial lessons learned from the prematurely halted randomized evaluation of surgery in elderly with traumatic acute subdural hematoma (RESET-ASDH) trial

Introduction

Acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) due to traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes an increasing global health problem, especially in the elderly population. Treatment decisions on surgical versus conservative management pose a neurosurgical dilemma. Large practice variation exists between countries, hospitals, and individual neurosurgeons, illustrating the presence of 'clinical equipoise'. The RESET-ASDH trial aimed to address this dilemma but was terminated prematurely due to insufficient patient recruitment.

Research question

What factors may have contributed to the premature discontinuation of the RESET-ASDH trial?

Materials and methods

The RESET-ASDH was a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing functional outcome at 1 year after early surgery or an initial conservative treatment in elderly patients (≥65 years) with a traumatic ASDH. Logs of registry data, medical-ethical approval timelines and COVID-19 related research documents were analyzed. Furthermore, non-structured interviews with involved clinical research personnel were conducted.

Results

The concept of clinical equipoise was broadly misinterpreted by neurosurgeons as individual uncertainty, hampering patient recruitment. Also, the elderly target population complicated the inclusion process as elderly and their informal caregivers were hesitant to participate in our acute surgical trial. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic added additional hurdles like delayed medical-ethical approval, a decline in eligible patients and repeated trial halts during the peaks of the pandemic.

Discussion and conclusion

The premature termination of the RESET-ASDH study may have been related to the trial's methodology and target population with an additional impact of COVID-19. Future acute neurosurgical trials in elderly may consider these challenges to prevent premature trial termination.

Delayed discovery: the COVID-19 pandemic's influence on osteoarthritis clinical trials

CONTEXT

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted clinical research in many medical and surgical fields, resulting in research waste and loss of treatment for patients. Although other areas have been explored, the extent of the pandemic's influence on osteoarthritis (OA) trials is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the reasons for termination of clinical trials investigating OA during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for OA trials and characterized their reason for discontinuation, noting where trialists directly cited the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for trial discontinuation. We also coded other common reasons for trial discontinuation. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed to determine the difference in enrollment, funding source, trial phase, allocation, and intervention type between the trials terminated early due to pandemic and nonpandemic reasons.

RESULTS

Out of 135 clinical trials, 119 were included and 27 (22.7 %) of them reported the COVID-19 pandemic as a primary reason for discontinuation, which was the overall most common reason for OA trial discontinuation during the study period. We found statistically significant differences for trials discontinued due to pandemic vs. non-pandemic-related reasons, with trials having sites outside the United States, randomized allocation, and drug or device intervention type being most affected. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding trial phase, funding source, or enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical trials related to OA. We found that many trials reported discontinuation directly due to the pandemic, which may lead to the loss or delay of novel treatments for OA. To avoid such discontinuation in the future, alternative methods for conducting OA-related clinical trials should be explored and implemented.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials: A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective

To study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials.

Methods

On June 10, 2022, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and identified clinical trials pertaining to eye diseases. We included trials last updated between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022, as ones possibly impacted by the pandemic. We selected all interventional trials in any stage and country that were "recruiting," "active, not recruiting," "enrolling by invitation," "suspended," "terminated," "completed," or "withdrawn" and excluded trials that had been completed or discontinued before 2020, had incomplete data, trials in which the eye was not the primary focus of the trial (e.g., Chediak-Higashi syndrome, myasthenia gravis). The following trial-level characteristics were collected: location, trial status, enrollment count, ocular condition, sponsors, intervention purpose, trial phase (I-IV), randomization, number of arms, and reasons for discontinuation. In addition to calculating descriptive statistics, we assessed whether trial characteristics differed between ophthalmology clinical trials canceled due to COVID-19 and those canceled for other reasons.

Results

Following the screening, 2280/12,679 (18%) ophthalmology clinical trials were retained. Of these, 142 (6.2%) were discontinued between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022. Moreover, 34 out of 142 (23.9%) ophthalmology clinical trials were discontinued due to COVID-19. These trials were more likely to be sponsored by academic medical centers (26/34, 76.5% vs 57/108, 52.8%, p = 0.03) and were not assigned to a specific study phase, indicating they were not investigational new drugs (22/34, 64.7% vs 46/108 42.6%, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

COVID-19-related trial discontinuations were more likely to be reported by academic medical centers and associated with trials investigating fully approved drugs, medical devices, procedures, diagnostic imaging, and behavioral changes. Further investigation of these characteristics may lead to a more robust and resilient understanding of the causes of early termination of these clinical trials.

The scientific chaos phase of the great pandemic: A longitudinal analysis and systematic review of the first surge of clinical research concerning COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Early stages of catastrophes like COVID-19 are often led by chaos and panic. To characterize the initial chaos phase of clinical research in such situations, we analyzed the first surge of more than 1000 clinical trials about the new disease at baseline and after two years follow-up. Our 3 main objectives were: (1) Assessment of spatial and temporal evolution of clinical research of COVID-19 across the globe, (2) Assessment of transparency and quality-trial registration, (3) Assessment of research waste and redundancies.

METHODS

By entering the keyword "COVID-19" we screened the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO and downloaded the search output when our goal of 1000 trials was reached on the 1st of April 2020. Additionally, we verified the integrity of the downloaded data from the meta registry by comparing the data with each individual registration record on their source register. Also, we conducted a follow-up after two years to track their progress.

RESULTS

(1) The spatial evolution followed the geographical spread of the disease as expected, however, the temporal development suggested that panic was the main driver for clinical research activities. (2) Trial registrations and registers showed a huge lack of transparency by allowing retrospective registrations and not keeping their registration records up to date. Quality of trial registration seems to have improved over the last decade, yet crucial information still was missing. (3) Research waste and redundancies were present as suggested by discontinuation of trials, preventable flaws in study design, and similar but uncoordinated research topics operationally fragmented in isolated silo-structures.

CONCLUSION

The scientific response mechanism across the globe was intact during the chaos phase. However, supervision, leadership, and accountability are urgently needed to prevent research waste, to ensure effective structure, quality, and validity to ultimately break the "panic-then-forget" cycle in future catastrophes.

Data-Driven and Technology-Enabled Trial Innovations Toward Decentralization of Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Considerations

Traditional trial designs have well-recognized inefficiencies and logistical barriers to participation. Decentralized trials and digital health solutions have been suggested as potential solutions and have certainly risen to the challenge during the pandemic. Clinical trial designs are now increasingly data driven. The use of distributed clinical data networks and digitization has helped to fundamentally upgrade existing research systems. A trial design may vary anywhere from fully decentralized to hybrid to traditional on-site. Various decentralization components are available for stakeholders to increase the reach and pace of their trials, such as electronic informed consent, remote interviews, administration, outcome assessment, monitoring, and laboratory and imaging modalities. Furthermore, digital health technologies can be included to enrich study conduct. However, careful consideration is warranted, including assessing verification and validity through usability studies and having various contingencies in place through dedicated risk assessment. Selecting the right combination depends not just on the ability to handle patient care and the medical know-how but also on the availability of appropriate technologic infrastructure, skills, and human resources. Throughout this process, quality of evidence generation and physician-patient relation must not be undermined. Here we also address some knowledge gaps, cost considerations, and potential impact of decentralization and digitization on inclusivity, recruitment, engagement, and retention. Last, we mention some future directions that may help drive the necessary change in the right direction.

Retailoring training programmes in anaesthesia and intensive care after the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we want to collect all the adaptations that anaesthesiology training has faced because of the health crisis and social distancing measures resulting from coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). We reviewed new teaching tools launched during the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide and particularly those implemented by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EACTAIC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Globally, COVID-19 has interrupted health services and all aspects of training programmes. These unprecedented changes have led to teaching and trainee support innovation tools, focusing on online learning and simulation programmes. Airway management, critical care and regional anaesthesia, have been enhanced during the pandemic, while there were major obstacles in paediatrics, obstetrics and pain medicine.

SUMMARY

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered profoundly the functioning of health systems worldwide. Anaesthesiologists and trainees have fought on the front lines of the battle against COVID-19. As a result, training in anaesthesiology during the last 2 years has focused on managing patients in intensive care. New training programmes have been designed to continue teaching residents of this speciality, focusing on e-learning and advanced simulation. It is necessary to present a review describing the impact that this turbulent period has had on the different subsections of anaesthesiology and to review the innovative measures that have been implemented to address these possible deficits in education and training.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.