Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators.

BACKGROUND: Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials. METHODS: Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature. CONCLUSIONS: Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

Current usage of explainer animations in trials: a survey of the UKCRC registered clinical trial units in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Explainer animations are a means to communicate aspects of clinical trials to participants in a more engaging and accessible way. Delivered well these have the potential to enhance recruitment and retention. The range of media technology used to deliver this material is expanding rapidly but is highly fragmented. Usage of explainer animations across the UK is unknown, the aim of this research was to determine current usage across the 52 registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) to understand the current landscape and any barriers that could be preventing wider uptake of this functionality. METHODS: A survey link was emailed to all UKCRC CTU Directors and Trial Management Leads to ascertain current usage of explainer animations within their CTU. The survey ran between 01 February 2023 and 07 March 2023. RESULTS: Responses were received from 35 CTUs-representing a response rate of 67%. 24 CTUs (69%) reported that they had created/used at least one explainer animation within their unit, although the usage, cost, length and production activities varied among the units. CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed that a high proportion of the UKCRC CTUs have used explainer animations to provide information to participants about clinical studies. For those not using the technology yet, the most common reasons cited were a lack of expertise, lack of resources and costs to produce them. One of the desired outcomes of this project is the creation of a free-to-use library of animations to encourage wider uptake and avoid duplication.

The unblinding of statisticians in clinical trials: commentary on Iflaifel et al., Trials 2023.

Recently, the Blinding of Trial Statisticians research team, Iflaifel and colleagues, have produced detailed guidance regarding the blinding or unblinding of statisticians in clinical trials, based on substantial mixed-methods work. I wish to comment on the research findings. In particular, I argue that open-label trials, non-drug trials, or non-inferiority trials should not be treated any differently from blinded superiority trials with regards to the risk of bias assessment. Prevention of bias should be the priority for definitive randomised controlled trials, regardless of the precise study design.

Developing guidance for a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials. METHODS: This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs. RESULTS: After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED).

Aims: The Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED) study will assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled study of clinical effectiveness in UK ambulance services to identify the optimal shock energy for defibrillation. Methods: POSED is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open label, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility study. Defibrillators within a single UK ambulance service will be randomised in an equal ratio to deliver one of three shock strategies 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, 200-200-200 J. Consecutive adults (≥18 years) presenting with out of hospital cardiac arrest requiring defibrillation will be eligible. The study plans to enrol 90 patients (30 in each group). Patients (or their relatives for non-survivors) will be informed about trial participation after the initial emergency has resolved. Survivors will be invited to consent to participate in follow-up (i.e., at 30 days or discharge).The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible patients who receive the randomised study intervention. Secondary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Clinical outcomes will include Return of an Organised Rhythm (ROOR) at 2 minutes post-shock, refibrillation rate, Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover, survival and neurological outcome at 30 days. Conclusion: The POSED study will assess the feasibility of a large-scale trial and explore opportunities to optimise the trial protocol.Trial registration: ISRCTN16327029.

Blinding of study statisticians in clinical trials: a qualitative study in UK clinical trials units.

BACKGROUND: Blinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials. METHODS: Data were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis. Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded. Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process.

Developing chief investigators within the NHS: the West Midlands clinical trials scholars programme.

Consecutive Royal College of Physicians' Research for all surveys have highlighted the challenges for doctors becoming involved in research. Local issues included under-representation of chief investigators (CIs) and reduction in dedicated research time. The West Midlands National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) established a clinical trials scholarship (CTS) initiative in 2019 to develop research-active consultants in smaller trusts, with a dedicated day per week embedded in a local clinical trials unit. In the initial round of 41 applications from 13 partner organisations, 17 CTSs were appointed, including nine consultant physicians, with one subsequently deferring. After 2 years, the remaining 16 CTSs have been awarded 40 grants totalling £18.35 million as CI or co-CI, including 10 NIHR grants, plus >200 publications. These scholarships are a proven cost-effective way to develop CIs, provide academic leadership and promote a research culture, even in small, previously less research-active trusts.

Rapid Adaptation of a Surgical Research Unit to Conduct Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought most ongoing clinical trials to a standstill, while at the same time emphasizing the need for new therapeutic treatments and strategies to mitigate the morbidity and mortality related to COVID-19. Recent publication of several observational studies has generated much discussion surrounding efficacy of drugs including hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and remdesivir, stressing the need for high-quality prospective, randomized control trials in patients with COVID-19. Ongoing "stay at home" orders and institutional policies mandating "work from home" for nonessential employees, which includes most research personnel, have impacted the ability to implement and conduct clinical studies. This article discusses the approach of an experienced clinical trials unit to make adjustments for ongoing studies and ensure the safety of study participants. At the same time, plans were implemented to continue collection of data to achieve endpoints, safely enroll and follow participants in studies offering potential benefit, and quickly implement new COVID-19 clinical trials. The existence of a Division of Clinical Research with regulatory, budgeting, contracting, and coordinating expertise within a department of surgery can successfully accommodate a crisis situation and rapidly adapt to new requirements for the safe, efficient, and effective conversion to a remote work force without compromising the research process.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: a survey to establish current practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional's skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials. METHODS: A survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate. RESULTS: Forty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. METHODS: A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. RESULTS: Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

Methodology for tissue sample collection within a translational sub-study of the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016), a large randomised phase III trial in localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This article presents the methodology for tissue sample collection in Trans-CHHiP, the main translational study within the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High dose intensity modulated radiotherapy in Prostate cancer, ISRCTN 97182923) trial. The CHHiP trial randomised 3216 men with localised prostate cancer to 3 different radiotherapy fractionation schedules. Trans-CHHiP aims to identify biomarkers of fraction sensitivity. METHODS: We outline the process of tissue collection, including central review by a study-specific specialist uropathologist and comparison of the centrally-assigned Gleason grade group with that assigned by the recruiting-centre pathologist. RESULTS: 2047 patients provided tissue from 107 pathology departments between August 2012 and April 2014. A highly motivated Clinical Trials Unit chasing samples and a central Trans-CHHiP group that regularly reviewed progress were important for successful sample collection. Agreement in Gleason grade group assigned by the recruiting centre pathologist and the central study-specific uropathologist occurred in 886 out of 1854 (47.8%) cases. Key lessons learned were the need for prospective consent for tissue collection when recruiting patients to the main trial, and the importance of Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) integration into the initial trial site agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology enabled collection of 2047 patient samples from a large randomised radiotherapy trial. Central pathological review is important to minimise subjectivity in Gleason grade grouping and the impact of grade shift.

What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results. METHODS: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories. RESULTS: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct.

Improving outcomes in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (EpAID) using a nurse-led intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken. DISCUSSION: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.

Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: A survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice outlines a three-committee trial oversight structure--the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the Data Monitoring Committee and the Trial Steering Committee. In this model, the Trial Steering Committee is the executive committee that oversees the trial and considers the recommendations from the Data Monitoring Committee. There is yet to be in-depth consideration establishing the Trial Steering Committee's role and functionality. METHODS: A survey to establish Trial Steering Committee's current practices, role and the use and opinion on the Medical Research Council guidelines was undertaken within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units. RESULTS: Completed surveys were obtained from 38 of 47 fully and partially registered Units. Individual items in the survey were analysed and reported spanning current Trial Steering Committee practices including its role, requirement and experience required for membership; methods to identify members; and meeting frequency. Terms (a document describing the committee's remit, objectives and functionality) were obtained and analysed from 21 of 33 Units with documents in place at their Unit. A total of 20 responders suggested aspects of the current Medical Research Council Guidelines that need improvement. CONCLUSION: We present the first survey reporting on practices within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units on the experience and remits of Trial Steering Committees. We have identified a widespread adoption of Medical Research Council Guidelines for Trial Steering Committees in the United Kingdom, but limitations in this existing provision have been identified that need to be addressed.

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications. PURPOSE: This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute. PROCESS: Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones. RESULTS: The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation. CONCLUSION: The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.

The role of the public in developing interventions: a reflection and critique of a cancer clinical trials unit's model.

The importance of involving lay representatives in research is well-recognized but is not consistently meaningfully practiced or reported. Although the positive outcomes of lay representative involvement can include more relevant research questions and outcomes, challenges are also apparent, including tokenistic involvement by research teams. A Cancer Research UK-funded and National Cancer Research Institute-registered cancer clinical trials unit in the United Kingdom established a program of work to promote genuine and consistent involvement of lay representatives (or "research partners") as part of the research team. Furthermore, a volunteer was employed to recruit and coordinate the research partners in partnership with a national agency for public involvement in health and social care research in Wales. This article reports on the development of this project and how it will be formally evaluated. Recommendations for involving lay representatives are also posed.