Dataset Information

Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS:In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION:The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

SUBMITTER: Harhay MO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7224097 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop.

Harhay Michael O MO Casey Jonathan D JD Clement Marina M Collins Sean P SP Gayat Étienne É Gong Michelle Ng MN Jaber Samir S Laterre Pierre-François PF Marshall John C JC Matthay Michael A MA Monroe Rhonda E RE Rice Todd W TW Rubin Eileen E Self Wesley H WH Mebazaa Alexandre A

Intensive care medicine 20200218 5

<h4>Background</h4>Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the Fi ...[more]

PMID: 32072303

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe ability to reproduce experiments is a defining principle of science. Reproducibility of clinical research has received relatively little scientific attention. However, it is important as it may inform clinical practice, research agendas, and the design of future studies.MethodsWe used scoping review methods to examine reproducibility within a cohort of randomized trials examining clinical critical care research and published in the top general medical and critical care journals. To identify relevant clinical practices, we searched the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and JAMA for randomized trials published up to April 2016. To identify a comprehensive set of studies for these practices, included articles informed secondary searches within other high-impact medical and specialty journals. We included late-phase randomized controlled trials examining therapeutic clinical practices in adults admitted to general medical-surgical or specialty intensive care units (ICUs). Included articles were classified using a reproducibility framework. An original study was the first to evaluate a clinical practice. A reproduction attempt re-evaluated that practice in a new set of participants.ResultsOverall, 158 practices were examined in 275 included articles. A reproduction attempt was identified for 66 practices (42%, 95% CI 33-50%). Original studies reported larger effects than reproduction attempts (primary endpoint, risk difference 16.0%, 95% CI 11.6-20.5% vs. 8.4%, 95% CI 6.0-10.8%, P = 0.003). More than half of clinical practices with a reproduction attempt demonstrated effects that were inconsistent with the original study (56%, 95% CI 42-68%), among which a large number were reported to be efficacious in the original study and to lack efficacy in the reproduction attempt (34%, 95% CI 19-52%). Two practices reported to be efficacious in the original study were found to be harmful in the reproduction attempt.ConclusionsA minority of critical care practices with research published in high-profile journals were evaluated for reproducibility; less than half had reproducible effects.

Project description:BackgroundNearly 1 in 3 clinical trials end prematurely due to underenrollment. Strategies to enhance recruitment are often implemented without scientific rigor to evaluate efficacy. Evidence-based, cost-effective behavioral economic strategies designed to influence decision-making may be useful to promote clinical trial enrollment.ObjectiveThis study evaluated 2 behavioral economic strategies to improve enrollment and retention rates across 4 clinical trials: information provision (IP) and contingency management (CM; ie, lottery). IP targets descriptive and injunctive norms about participating in research and CM provides participants incentives to reinforce a target behavior.MethodsA sample of 212 participants was enrolled across 4 clinical trials focused on tobacco use: 2 focused on HIV and 2 focused on neuroimaging. The CM condition included a lottery: for each study visit completed, participants received 5 "draws" from a bowl containing 500 "chips" valued at US $0, US $1, US $5, or US $100. In the IP condition, text messages that targeted injunctive norms about research (eg, "Many find it a rewarding way to advance science and be part of a community") were sent through the Way to Health platform before all study visits. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions: IP, CM, IP+CM, or standard recruitment (SR). We performed logistic regression, controlling for sex and study, with condition as a between-subject predictor. Outcomes were the percentage of participants who attended a final eligibility visit (primary), met intent-to-treat (ITT) criteria (secondary), and completed the study (secondary). Recruitment was evaluated by the percentage of participants who attended a final eligibility visit, enrollment by ITT status, and retention by the percentage of participants who completed the study.ResultsRates of attending the eligibility visit and meeting ITT status were 58.9% (33/56) and 33.9% (19/56) for IP+CM; 45.5% (25/55) and 18.2% (10/55) for IP only; 41.5% (22/53) and 18.9% (10/53) for CM only; and 37.5% (18/48) and 12.5% (6/48) for SR, respectively. In the logistic regression, females were more likely to meet ITT status than males (odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-5.7; P=.01). The IP+CM group was twice as likely to attend the final eligibility visit than the SR group (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.2; P=.04). The IP+CM group was also significantly more likely to reach ITT status than the SR condition (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.3-11.1; P=.01). Those who received any active intervention (IP, CM, or IP+CM) had a higher study completion rate (33/53, 63.5%) compared to those who received SR (5/12, 41.7%), but this difference was not significant (P=.26).ConclusionsCombining IP and CM strategies may motivate participants to participate in research and improve recruitment and retention rates. Evidence from this study provides preliminary support for the utility of behavioral economics strategies to improve enrollment and reduce attrition in clinical trials.

Dataset Information

Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop.

Publications

Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets