The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Developing Guidance for Donor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials: Initial Discussions From the Canada-United Kingdom 2022 Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Donor interventions, including medications, protocols, and medical devices administered to donors, can enhance transplantable organ quality and quantity and maximize transplantation success. However, there is paucity of high-quality evidence about their effectiveness, in part because of ethical, practical, and regulatory challenges, and lack of guidance about conduct of donor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: With the vision to develop authoritative guidance for conduct of donor intervention RCTs, we convened a workshop of Canadian-United Kingdom experts in organ donation and transplantation ethics, research, and policy to identify stakeholders, explore unique challenges, and develop research agenda to inform future work in this promising field. RESULTS: Donor intervention trials should consider perspectives of broad group of stakeholders including donors, transplant recipients, and their families; researchers in donation and transplantation; research ethics boards; and healthcare providers and administrators involved in donation and transplantation. Unique challenges include (1) research ethics (living versus deceased status of the donor at the time of intervention, intervention versus outcomes assessment in different individuals, harm-benefit analysis in donors versus recipients, consent, and impact on research bystanders); (2) outcome data standardization and linkage; and (3) regulatory and governance considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Donor intervention RCTs hold potential to benefit organ transplantation outcomes but face unique research ethics, outcome data, and regulatory challenges. By developing research agenda to address these challenges, our workshop was an important first step toward developing Canada-United Kingdom guidance for donor intervention RCTs that are poised to improve the quality and availability of transplantable organs.

Why and when should we cluster randomize?

A cluster randomized trial is defined as a randomized trial in which intact social units of individuals are randomized rather than individuals themselves. Outcomes are observed on individual participants within clusters (such as patients). Such a design allows assessing interventions targeting cluster-level participants (such as physicians), individual participants or both. Indeed, many interventions assessed in cluster randomized trials are actually complex ones, with distinct components targeting different levels. For a cluster-level intervention, cluster randomization is an obvious choice: the intervention is not divisible at the individual-level. For individual-level interventions, cluster randomization may nevertheless be suitable to prevent group contamination, for logistical reasons, to enhance participants' adherence, or when objectives pertain to the cluster level. An unacceptable reason for cluster randomization would be to avoid obtaining individual consent. Indeed, participants in cluster randomized trials have to be protected as in any type of trial design. Participants may be people from whom data are collected, but they may also be people who are intervened upon, and this includes both patients and physicians (for example, physicians receiving training interventions). Consent should be sought as soon as possible, although there may exist situations where participants may consent only for data collection, not for being exposed to the intervention (because, for instance, they cannot opt-out). There may even be situations where participants are not able to consent at all. In this latter situation a waiver of consent must be granted by a research ethics committee.

Response to Merz.

Jon Merz raises two objections to our article on the ethics of behavioral influences in trial recruitment. In this response, we defend our article against these objections. We argue that Merz's critique rests on a misunderstanding of our article, defend the daily life standard as a guardrail for leveraging cognitive biases, and argue that rejecting all behavioral influences is not a helpful nor a sustainable answer to their increasing use in trial recruitment.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications. METHODS: We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial. RESULTS: Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript. INTERPRETATION: Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Ethics of Controlled Human Infection Studies With Hepatitis C Virus.

Global elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) will be difficult to attain without an effective HCV vaccine. Controlled human infection (CHI) studies with HCV were not considered until recently, when highly effective treatment became available. However, now that successful treatment of a deliberate HCV infection is feasible, it is imperative to evaluate the ethics of establishing a program of HCV CHI research. Here, we evaluate the ethics of studies to develop an HCV CHI model in light of 10 ethical considerations: sufficient social value, reasonable risk-benefit profile, suitable site selection, fair participant selection, robust informed consent, proportionate compensation or payment, context-specific stakeholder engagement, fair and open collaboration, independent review and oversight, and integrated ethics research. We conclude that it can be ethically acceptable to develop an HCV CHI model. Indeed, when done appropriately, developing a model should be a priority on the path toward global elimination of HCV.

Neurologic Physiology after Removal of Therapy (NeuPaRT) study: study protocol of a multicentre, prospective, observational, pilot feasibility study of neurophysiology after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures.

INTRODUCTION: In donation after circulatory determination of death, death is declared 5 min after circulatory arrest. This practice assumes, but does not explicitly confirm, permanent loss of brain activity. While this assumption is rooted a strong physiological rationale, paucity of direct human data regarding temporal relationship between cessation of brain activity and circulatory arrest during the dying process threatens public and healthcare provider trust in deceased organ donation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this cohort study, we will prospectively record cerebral and brainstem electrical activity, cerebral blood flow velocity and arterial blood pressure using electroencephalography (EEG), brainstem evoked potentials, transcranial doppler and bedside haemodynamic monitors in adult patients undergoing planned withdrawal of life sustaining measures in the intensive care units at five hospital sites for 18 months. We will use MATLAB to synchronise waveform data and compute the time of cessation of each signal relative to circulatory arrest. Our primary outcome is the feasibility of patient accrual, while secondary outcomes are (a) proportion of patients with complete waveform recordings and data transfer to coordinating site and (b) time difference between cessation of neurophysiological signals and circulatory arrest. We expect to accrue 1 patient/site/month for a total of 90 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have ethics approval from Clinical Trials Ontario (protocol #3862, version 1.0, date 19 January 2022.) and the relevant Research Ethics Board for each site. We will obtain written informed consent from legal substitute decision makers. We will present study results at research conferences including donor family partner forum and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05306327.

Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis.

While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance.

FLUID trial: a hospital-wide open-label cluster cross-over pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised pilot trial comparing normal saline to Ringer's lactate.

OBJECTIVES: Normal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids used for fluid therapy. Despite evidence of possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function and death), few large multi-centre randomised trials have evaluated the effect of these fluids on clinically important outcomes. We conducted a pilot trial to explore the feasibility of a large trial powered for clinically important outcomes. DESIGN: FLUID was a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised cross-over trial. SETTING: Four hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised adult and paediatric patients with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period. INTERVENTIONS: A hospital wide policy/strategy which stocked either NS or RL throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary feasibility outcome was study fluid protocol adherence. Secondary feasibility outcomes included time to Research Ethics Board (REB) approval and trial initiation. Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Among 24 905 included patients, mean age 59.1 (SD 20.5); 13 977 (56.1%) were female and 21 150 (85.0%) had medical or surgical admitting diagnoses. Overall, 96 821 L were administered in the NS arm, and 78 348 L in the RL arm. Study fluid adherence to NS and RL was 93.7% (site range: 91.6%-98.0%) and 79.8% (site range: 72.5%-83.9%), respectively. Time to REB approval ranged from 2 to 48 days and readiness for trial initiation from 51 to 331 days. 5544 (22.3%) patients died or required hospital re-admission in the first 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The future large trial is feasible. Anticipating and addressing logistical challenges during the planning stages will be imperative. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02721485.

Health equity considerations in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's and dementia disease: Results from a methodological review.

Introduction: To improve dementia care delivery for persons across all backgrounds, it is imperative that health equity is integrated into pragmatic trials. Methods: We reviewed 62 pragmatic trials of people with dementia published 2014 to 2019. We assessed health equity in the objectives; design, conduct, analysis; and reporting using PROGRESS-Plus which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, and other factors such as age and disability. Results: Two (3.2%) trials incorporated equity considerations into their objectives; nine (14.5%) engaged with communities; 4 (6.5%) described steps to increase enrollment from equity-relevant groups. Almost all trials (59, 95.2%) assessed baseline balance for at least one PROGRESS-Plus characteristic, but only 10 (16.1%) presented subgroup analyses across such characteristics. Differential recruitment, attrition, implementation, adherence, and applicability across PROGRESS-Plus were seldom discussed. Discussion: Ongoing and future pragmatic trials should more rigorously integrate equity considerations in their design, conduct, and reporting. Highlights: Few pragmatic trials are explicitly designed to inform equity-relevant objectives.Few pragmatic trials take steps to increase enrollment from equity-relevant groups.Disaggregated results across equity-relevant groups are seldom reported.Adherence to existing tools (e.g., IMPACT Best Practices, CONSORT-Equity) is key.

Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess cognition and consciousness in severe Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Objective: Functional neuroimaging may provide a viable means of assessment and communication in patients with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) mimicking the complete locked-in state. Functional neuroimaging has been used to assess residual cognitive function and has allowed for binary communication with other behaviourally non-responsive patients, such as those diagnosed with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. We evaluated the potential application of functional neuroimaging using a clinical-grade scanner to determine if individuals with severe GBS retained auditory function, command following, and communication. Methods: Fourteen healthy participants and two GBS patients were asked to perform motor imagery and spatial navigation imagery tasks while being scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging. The GBS patients were also asked to perform additional functional neuroimaging scans to attempt communication. Results: The motor imagery and spatial navigation task elicited significant activation in appropriate regions of interest for both GBS patients, indicating intact command following. Both patients were able to use the imagery technique to communicate in some instances. Patient 1 was able to use one of four communication tasks to answer a question correctly. Patient 2 was able to use three of seven communication tasks. However, two questions were incorrectly answered while a third was non-verifiable. Conclusions: GBS patients can respond using mental imagery and these responses can be detected using functional neuroimaging. Furthermore, these patients may also be able to use mental imagery to provide answers to 'yes' or 'no' questions in some instances. We argue that the most appropriate use of neuroimaging-based communication in these patients is to allow them to communicate wishes or preferences and assent to previously expressed decisions, rather than to facilitate decision-making.

Ethics of non-therapeutic research on imminently dying patients in the intensive care unit.

Non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients in intensive care presents complex ethical issues. The vulnerabilities of the imminently dying, together with societal disquiet around death and dying, contribute to an intuition that such research is beyond the legitimate scope of scientific inquiry. Yet excluding imminently dying patients from research hinders the advancement of medical science to the detriment of future patients. Building on existing ethical guidelines for research, we propose a framework for the ethical design and conduct of research involving the imminently dying. To enable rapid translation to practice, we frame the approach in the form of eight ethical questions that researchers and research ethics committees ought to answer prior to conducting any research with this patient population. (1) Does the study hypothesis require the inclusion of imminently dying patients? (2) Are non-therapeutic risks and burdens minimised consistent with sound scientific design? (3) Are the risks of these procedures no more than minimal risk? (4) Are these non-therapeutic risks justified insofar as they are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits of the study? (5) Will valid informed consent be obtained from an authorised surrogate decision maker? (6) How will incidental findings be handled? (7) What additional steps are in place to protect families and significant others of research participants? (8) What additional steps are in place to protect clinical staff and researchers? Several ethical challenges hinder research with imminently dying patients. Nonetheless, provided adequate protections are in place, non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients is ethically justifiable. Applying our framework to an ongoing study, we demonstrate how our question-driven approach is well suited to guiding investigators and research ethics committees.

Ethical analysis of vulnerabilities in cluster randomized trials involving people living with dementia in long-term care homes.

Cluster randomized trials (CRT) of non-pharmacological interventions are an important means of improving the quality of care and quality of life of people living with dementia (PLWD) in long-term care (LTC) homes. PLWD in LTC homes are, however, vulnerable in manifold ways. Therefore, researchers require guidance to ensure that the rights and welfare of PLWD are protected in the course of this valuable research. In this article, we introduce a framework for identifying vulnerabilities in randomized trials and apply it to three CRTs involving PLWD in LTC homes. CRTs may render PLWD in LTC homes vulnerable to three autonomy wrongs: inadequately informed consent, inadequately voluntary consent, and invasions of privacy; two welfare wrongs: risks of therapeutic procedure exceed potential benefits, and excessive risk of non-therapeutic procedures; and one justice wrong: unjust impact of research activities on care. We then discuss appropriate, feasible additional protections that can be implemented to mitigate vulnerability while preserving the scientific validity of the CRT. Corresponding additional protections that can be feasibly implemented include capacity assessments, substitute decision-makers, assent, insulation from LTC home employees during the consent process, patient advocates, utilizing LTC home employees for data collection, stakeholder engagement, additional supervision during study procedures, using caregivers to complete questionnaires by proxy, and gatekeeper permission. Reassuringly, many of these additional protections promote, rather than imperil, the scientific validity of these trials.

Heterogeneity in pragmatic randomised trials: sources and management.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials aim to generate evidence to directly inform patient, caregiver and health-system manager policies and decisions. Heterogeneity in patient characteristics contributes to heterogeneity in their response to the intervention. However, there are many other sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Based on the expertise and judgements of the authors, we identify different sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, which translate into heterogeneity in patient responses-some we consider as desirable and some as undesirable. For each of them, we discuss and, using real-world trial examples, illustrate how heterogeneity should be managed over the whole course of the trial. MAIN TEXT: Heterogeneity in centres and patients should be welcomed rather than limited. Interventions can be flexible or tailored and control interventions are expected to reflect usual care, avoiding use of a placebo. Co-interventions should be allowed; adherence should not be enforced. All these elements introduce heterogeneity in interventions (experimental or control), which has to be welcomed because it mimics reality. Outcomes should be objective and possibly routinely collected; standardised assessment, blinding and adjudication should be avoided as much as possible because this is not how assessment would be done outside a trial setting. The statistical analysis strategy must be guided by the objective to inform decision-making, thus favouring the intention-to-treat principle. Pragmatic trials should consider including process analyses to inform an understanding of the trial results. Needed data to conduct these analyses should be collected unobtrusively. Finally, ethical principles must be respected, even though this may seem to conflict with goals of pragmatism; consent procedures could be incorporated in the flow of care.

Protocol for a qualitative pilot study to explore ethical issues and stakeholder trust in the use of normothermic regional perfusion in organ donation in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: The process of controlled organ donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) results in ischaemic injury to organs and leads to poorer outcomes in organ recipients. Although not yet used in Canada, normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a perfusion technology used postmortem with cDCDD donors to selectively restore perfusion of oxygenated blood to target organs in situ, reversing ischaemic injury and improving organ viability and post-transplant outcomes. However, NRP poses significant ethical challenges. To preserve trust in deceased donation, these ethical challenges must be addressed to the satisfaction of Canadian stakeholders before NRP's implementation. This study will identify ethical issues pertaining to NRP and explore perspectives of NRP among key stakeholders. By developing an explanatory framework delineating how stakeholder perceptions of NRP's ethical implications impact trust in Canada's donation and transplantation systems, this study will inform the development of responsible policy on NRP's use in Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study includes two workstreams. Workstream 1 is a scoping review of medical and bioethical literature to identify ethical issues stemming from NRP. We will apply a common search string across Medline, PubMed (other than Medline) and Embase to identify relevant articles. We will identify grey literature through Google searches, websites of organ donation organisations and consultation with our research network. No date limits will be applied. All peer-reviewed publications, commentaries, editorials or documents that engage with ethical issues in NRP (or conceptual and empirical issues as they relate to these ethical issues) will be included. News articles, conference abstracts and publications not in English will be excluded. Workstream 2 consists of interviews with healthcare providers, institutional stakeholders, organ recipients and deceased donors' family members (n=24-36), as well as focus groups with healthcare providers involved in deceased donation and transplantation (n=20-32). Constructivist grounded theory methodology will guide data collection and analysis in workstream 2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Western University's research ethics committee (Western REM; ID: 120001). All participants will be asked to provide written informed consent to participate. Findings will be shared with Canadian organ donation and transplantation organisations, presented at national conferences and published in medical journals.

An analysis of published trials found that current use of pragmatic trial labels is uninformative.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized trials labelled as "pragmatic" are attractive to funders, patients, and clinicians as the label implies that the results are directly applicable to clinical care. We examined how authors justify use of the label (e.g., by referring to one or more PRECIS [PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary]-2 domains). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed primary trial reports published 2014-2019, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and using the pragmatic label anywhere in the report. RESULTS: Among 415 trials, the label was justified by reference to at least one design element in 282 (68.0%); of these, 240 (85.1%) referenced trial characteristics that can be mapped to one or more of the PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly eligibility (91, 32.3%), setting (90, 31.9%), flexibility delivery (89, 31.6%), and organization (75, 26.6%); 42 (14.9%) referenced characteristics that are not PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly type of intervention/comparator (48, 17%), recruitment without consent (22, 7.8%), routinely collected data (22, 7.8%), and cluster randomization (20, 7.1%). Most reports referenced only one or two design elements. Overall, 9/415 (2.2%) provided PRECIS wheels. CONCLUSION: Current use of pragmatic labels is uninformative. Authors should clarify the decision the trial is intended to support and include a PRECIS-2 table to make the design transparent.

Research bystanders, justice, and the state: Reframing the debate on third-party protections in health research.

Research participants are afforded protections to ensure their rights and welfare are not unduly jeopardized by research activities. Yet people who do not meet the criteria for research participant status may likewise be impacted by research activities, and ethicists argue that protections should be afforded these "research bystanders." The standard rationale for extending protections to research bystanders contends that they are sufficiently like research participants that the ethical principles governing health research ought to extend to them. In this article we argue that this analogical reasoning is mistaken. Salient moral differences mean that research ethics frameworks are not fit for purpose. We defend the research bystander category by articulating a novel foundation for this new class of stakeholder. Focusing on bystanders directly impacted by publicly funded health research, we argue that bystanders are sometimes owed protections-but neither because of their similarity to research participants nor because research ethics principles should extend to them. Instead, we reframe the issue as a question of justice. Building on the work of Douglas MacKay, we argue that bystanders to publicly funded health research are owed protections as citizens of liberal states to whom the state owes duties of justice. The state has duties to protect the interests of citizens and to conduct health research. When the means by which the state fulfils the latter duty comes into conflict with the means by which it fulfils the former, the state must ensure that those impacted, including research bystanders, are afforded protections.