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.

Reporting quality of trial protocols improved for non-regulated interventions but not regulated interventions: A repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the adherence of randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions (including dietary interventions, surgical procedures, behavioural and lifestyle interventions, and exercise programmes) in comparison with regulated interventions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional investigation in a random sample of RCT protocols approved in 2012 (n = 257) or 2016 (n = 292) by research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, or Canada. We investigated the proportion of accurately reported SPIRIT checklist items in protocols of trials with non-regulated as compared to regulated interventions. RESULTS: Overall, 131 (24%) of trial protocols tested non-regulated interventions. In 2012, the median proportion of SPIRIT items reported in these protocols (59%, interquartile range [IQR], 53%-69%) was lower than in protocols with regulated interventions (median, 74%, IQR, 66%-80%). In 2016, the reporting quality of protocols with non-regulated interventions (median, 75%, IQR, 62%-83%) improved to the level of regulated intervention protocols, which had not changed on average. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of RCT protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions improved between 2012 and 2016, although remained suboptimal. SPIRIT recommendations need to be further endorsed by researchers, ethics committees, funding agencies, and journals to optimize reporting of RCT protocols.

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.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors combined with memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with Alzheimer’s disease is inconclusive. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy of AChEI and memantine to monotherapy with either substance in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score is <20). METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and CENTRAL until February 2018 for eligible RCTs. We pooled the outcome data using inverse variance weighting models assuming random effects, and assessed the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (2604 patients). At short-term follow-up (closest to 6 months), combination therapy compared to AChEI monotherapy had a significantly greater effect on cognition than AChEI monotherapy (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.35, 7 RCTs, low QoE) and clinical global impression (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01, 4 RCTs, moderate QoE), but not on activities of daily living (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.18, 5 RCTs, moderate QoE) or behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (mean difference −3.07, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.38, 6 RCT, low QoE). There was no significant difference in adverse events (relative risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12, 4 RCTs, low QoE). Evidence for long-term follow-up (≥ 9 months) or nursing home placement was sparse. Only two studies compared combination therapy with memantine monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy had statistically significant effects on cognition and clinical global impression. The clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. The overall QoE was very low. With the current evidence, it remains unclear whether combination therapy adds any benefit. Large pragmatic RCTs with long-term follow-up and focus on functional outcomes, delay in nursing home placement and adverse events are needed.  .

Beyond Pills: Acupressure Impact on Self-Rated Pain and Anxiety Scores.

Objectives: To determine impact of an acupressure protocol on self-rated pain and anxiety scores. Design: Retrospective database analysis of self-rated pain and anxiety scores before and immediately after administration of stress release acupressure protocol. Participants: Participants include hospitalized patients, nurses, and public. Intervention: Involves a 16-point stress release acupressure protocol. Outcome measures: Outcome measures involve pre- and post-treatment self-rated pain scores (0-10) with the Wong-Baker Faces Scale and pre- and post-treatment self-rated anxiety scores (0-10) on a visual analog scale. Results: Five hundred and nineteen acupressure treatments were retrospectively analyzed with pre- and post-treatment self-rated pain and anxiety scores, where 0 represented no pain or anxiety and 10 represented the worst pain and anxiety. Overall, participants demonstrated a two-point decrease in pain scores and a four-point decrease in anxiety scores post-treatment. Hospitalized patients demonstrated a four-point decrease in pain scores and a five-point decrease in anxiety scores post-treatment. Nurses demonstrated a three-point decrease in pain scores and four-point decrease in anxiety scores post-treatment. Public population demonstrated a one-point decrease in pain scores and two-point decrease in anxiety scores post-treatment. Seventy-five percent of participants were highly satisfied with acupressure treatments, and 96% of treatments were administered in less than 30 minutes. Conclusions: Acupressure is a highly satisfactory complementary therapy that can demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in self-rated pain and anxiety scores.

Resource use, costs, and approval times for planning and preparing a randomized clinical trial before and after the implementation of the new Swiss human research legislation.

BACKGROUND: The preparation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) requires substantial resources and the administrative processes can be burdensome. To facilitate the conduct of RCTs it is important to better understand cost drivers. In January 2014 the enactment of the new Swiss Legislation on Human Research (LHR) considerably changed the regulatory framework in Switzerland. We assess if the new LHR was associated with change in (i) resource use and costs to prepare an RCT, and (ii) approval times with research ethics committees (RECs) and the regulatory authority Swissmedic. METHODS: We surveyed investigators of RCTs which were approved by RECs in 2012 or in 2016 and asked for RCT preparation costs using a pre-specified item list. Additionally, we collected approval times from RECs and Swissmedic. RESULTS: The response rates of the investigator survey were 8.3% (19/228) for 2012 and 16.5% (47/285) in 2016. The median preparation cost of an RCT was USD 72,400 (interquartile range [IQR]: USD 59,500-87,700; n = 18) in 2012 and USD 72,600 (IQR: USD 42,800-169,600; n = 35) in 2016. For single centre RCTs a median REC approval time of 82 (IQR: 49-107; n = 38) days in 2012 and 92 (IQR: 65-131; n = 63) days in 2016 was observed. The median Swissmedic approval time for any clinical trial was 27 (IQR: 19-51; n = 213) days in 2012 and 49 (IQR: 36-67; n = 179) days in 2016. The total duration for achieving RCT approval from both authorities (REC and Swissmedic) in the parallel submission procedure applied in 2016 could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Based on limited data the costs to plan and prepare RCTs in Switzerland were approximately USD 72,000 in 2012 and 2016. For effective and valid research on costs and approval times of RCTs a greater willingness to share cost information among investigators and more collaboration between stakeholders with data linkage is necessary.

Protocol for a scoping review to support development of a CONSORT extension for randomised controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. The development of an extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data is being undertaken with the goal of improving reporting quality by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these designs. To develop this extension to the CONSORT statement, a scoping review will be conducted to identify potential modifications or clarifications of existing reporting guideline items, as well as additional items needed for reporting RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In separate searches, we will seek publications on methods or reporting or that describe protocols or results from RCTs using cohorts, registries, electronic health records and administrative databases. Data sources will include Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. For each of the four main types of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, separately, two investigators will independently review included publications to extract potential checklist items. A potential item will either modify an existing CONSORT 2010, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology or REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data item or will be proposed as a new item. Additionally, we will identify examples of good reporting in RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed scoping review will help guide the development of the CONSORT extension statement for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.