Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials.

Conducting non-commercial international clinical trials: the ICR-CTSU experience.

BACKGROUND: Academic clinical trials play a fundamental role in the development of new treatments, the repurposing of existing treatments and in addressing areas of unmet clinical need. With cancer treatments increasingly targeted at molecular subtypes, and with priority placed on developing new treatments for rare tumour types, the need for international trial participation to access sufficient patient numbers for successful trial conduct is growing. However, lack of harmonisation of international legal, ethical and financial systems can make this challenging and the cost and effort of conducting trials internationally can be considered prohibitive, particularly where the sample size is comparatively small. METHODS: The Institute of Cancer Research - Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is a UK-based academic clinical trials unit that specialises in the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials of cancer treatments with an expanding portfolio of trials in molecular subtypes of breast and urological cancers and in other rare cancer types. Implementing appropriate mechanisms to enable international participation has therefore been imperative. In this article, we explain how we have approached the challenges involved and describe examples of successful international trial conduct, achieved through robust collaborations with academic and industry partners. CONCLUSION: Conducting academic trials internationally is challenging but can and should be achieved through appropriate governance mechanisms and strong collaborations.

Death, bereavement and randomised controlled trials (BRACELET): a methodological study of policy and practice in neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have seldom included bereaved parents in studies of participants' views of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); hence our understanding of the impact of trials is based on skewed and incomplete samples. Little is known about parental experiences of the death of a child subsequent to their enrolment in a trial or of provision made for this experience by clinicians and trial teams. The Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) study was funded to consider bereavement in the context of paediatric intensive care (PIC) and neonatal intensive care (NIC) trials. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study comprised three interlinked components: a quantitative survey of RCT activity in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), UK RCT recruitment and mortality rates, and provision for bereavement during 2002-6; a qualitative interview study involving 51 bereaved parents and 59 clinicians and trial team members associated with five neonatal trials; and a methodological study to inform future research. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs were identified as having enrolled babies or children from 2002 to 2006. Approximately 50% of UK NICUs and PICUs (54 NICUs, six PICUs) participated in at least one of these trials. Collectively they enrolled over 3000 children. Most enrolled small numbers, the majority of participants being enrolled by a small group of academic medical units. The proportion of deaths following trial enrolment was 17% in NIC trials and 6% in PIC trials. The qualitative study showed that trial-related decisions were made in a range of circumstances, some after extremely preterm births, others after complicated term deliveries, often under time pressures and in escalating crises. Parents' interest in trials appeared to recede initially but could re-emerge over time. They often valued opportunities to engage with a trial and were interested in more contact and information than they actually received. Clinicians often saw NICU bereavement policies as meeting parental needs, and trial participation as being of relatively minor significance in bereavement. This view may result from the positioning of clinicians' encounters with parents only in the initial stages of grief when trials were not a priority. Trial teams used a range of bereavement strategies, from no further contact to a pioneering multipart follow-up package. Communication with bereaved parents was complicated by limited contact opportunities. Trial teams were obliged to work without knowing whether their communications were appreciated, were problematic, or even whether they were received by parents. The methodological component highlighted strategies for recruitment and data collection in this sensitive setting. Recruitment by unsupported postal contact generally failed and a more personal approach via clinicians was more effective, supplemented by publicity material distributed via trusted organisations. CONCLUSIONS: A co-ordinated response to bereavement is as much a part of the running of trials as recruitment, and needs to be considered at trial inception. BRACELET has demonstrated the value and feasibility of research with bereaved parents involved in NIC trials. In order to respond to bereavement in a fair and sensitive way, as well as to better inform the design of RCTs, it is crucial that we listen to bereaved parents and evaluate new methods for so doing. More research is therefore needed into the experiences of bereavement subsequent to trial enrolment, with study of bereavement strategies in NIC trials as they are introduced. In addition, future studies should determine whether parents and triallists in PIC trials (and trials in adults) face the same issues as in NIC trials. Careful studies are necessary to explore how feedback of trial results are received and understood by bereaved and non-bereaved parents, and how individual trial teams manage this situation. An additional research area for exploring experiences of parenting twins and higher-order births in trials arose from BRACELET. Developmental research should continue to explore means of involving a wider range of parents in future research, including via publicity and specialist websites. Finally, methodological research is needed to ensure that we have the tools to explore, with parents and other relatives, as partners in research, a range of trial-related topics, which might be challenging, as the information is complex or the focus is sensitive. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

A clinical and economic evaluation of Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care (CHiP): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early research in adults admitted to intensive care suggested that tight control of blood glucose during acute illness can be associated with reductions in mortality, length of hospital stay and complications such as infection and renal failure. Prior to our study, it was unclear whether or not children could also benefit from tight control of blood glucose during critical illness. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine if controlling blood glucose using insulin in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) reduces mortality and morbidity and is cost-effective, whether or not admission follows cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Randomised open two-arm parallel group superiority design with central randomisation with minimisation. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Following random allocation, care givers and outcome assessors were no longer blind to allocation. SETTING: The setting was 13 English PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who met the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: ≥ 36 weeks corrected gestational age; ≤ 16 years; in the PICU following injury, following major surgery or with critical illness; anticipated treatment > 12 hours; arterial line; mechanical ventilation; and vasoactive drugs. Exclusion criteria were as follows: diabetes mellitus; inborn error of metabolism; treatment withdrawal considered; in the PICU > 5 consecutive days; and already in CHiP (Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care). INTERVENTION: The intervention was tight glycaemic control (TGC): insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain blood glucose between 4.0 and 7.0 mmol/l. CONVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT (CM): This consisted of insulin by intravenous infusion only if blood glucose exceeded 12.0 mmol/l on two samples at least 30 minutes apart; insulin was stopped when blood glucose fell below 10.0 mmol/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 30 days of trial entry (VFD-30). The secondary outcomes comprised clinical and economic outcomes at 30 days and 12 months and lifetime cost-effectiveness, which included costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: CHiP recruited from May 2008 to September 2011. In total, 19,924 children were screened and 1369 eligible patients were randomised (TGC, 694; CM, 675), 60% of whom were in the cardiac surgery stratum. The randomised groups were comparable at trial entry. More children in the TGC than in the CM arm received insulin (66% vs. 16%). The mean VFD-30 was 23 [mean difference 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 1.14]. The effect did not differ among prespecified subgroups. Hypoglycaemia occurred significantly more often in the TGC than in the CM arm (moderate, 12.5% vs. 3.1%; severe, 7.3% vs. 1.5%). Mean 30-day costs were similar between arms, but mean 12-month costs were lower in the TGC than in CM arm (incremental costs -£3620, 95% CI -£7743 to £502). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, mean costs were lower in the TGC than in the CM arm (incremental cost -£9865, 95% CI -£18,558 to -£1172), but, in the cardiac surgery stratum, the costs were similar between the arms (incremental cost £133, 95% CI -£3568 to £3833). Lifetime incremental net benefits were positive overall (£3346, 95% CI -£11,203 to £17,894), but close to zero for the cardiac surgery stratum (-£919, 95% CI -£16,661 to £14,823). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, the incremental net benefits were high (£11,322, 95% CI -£15,791 to £38,615). The probability that TGC is cost-effective is relatively high for the non-cardiac surgery stratum, but, for the cardiac surgery subgroup, the probability that TGC is cost-effective is around 0.5. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to a range of alternative assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: CHiP found no differences in the clinical or cost-effectiveness of TGC compared with CM overall, or for prespecified subgroups. A higher proportion of the TGC arm had hypoglycaemia. This study did not provide any evidence to suggest that PICUs should stop providing CM for children admitted to PICUs following cardiac surgery. For the subgroup not admitted for cardiac surgery, TGC reduced average costs at 12 months and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is required to refine the TGC protocol to minimise the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes and assess the long-term health benefits of TGC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Control of hyperglycaemia in paediatric intensive care (CHiP): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that tight blood glucose (BG) control improves outcomes in critically ill adults. Children show similar hyperglycaemic responses to surgery or critical illness. However it is not known whether tight control will benefit children given maturational differences and different disease spectrum. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is an randomised open trial with two parallel groups to assess whether, for children undergoing intensive care in the UK aged

Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Securing and managing finances for multicentre randomised controlled trials is a highly complex activity which is rarely considered in the research literature. This paper describes the process of financial negotiation and the impact of financial considerations in four UK multicentre trials. These trials had met, or were on schedule to meet, recruitment targets agreed with their public-sector funders. The trials were considered within a larger study examining factors which might be associated with trial recruitment (STEPS). METHODS: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in 2003-04 with 45 individuals with various responsibilities to one of the four trials. Interviewees were recruited through purposive and then snowball sampling. Interview transcripts were analysed with the assistance of the qualitative package Atlas-ti. RESULTS: The data suggest that the UK system of dividing funds into research, treatment and NHS support costs brought the trial teams into complicated negotiations with multiple funders. The divisions were somewhat malleable and the funding system was used differently in each trial. The fact that all funders had the potential to influence and shape the trials considered here was an important issue as the perspectives of applicants and funders could diverge. The extent and range of industry involvement in non-industry-led trials was striking. Three broad periods of financial work (foundation, maintenance, and resourcing completion) were identified. From development to completion of a trial, the trialists had to be resourceful and flexible, adapting to changing internal and external circumstances. In each period, trialists and collaborators could face changing costs and challenges. Each trial extended the recruitment period; three required funding extensions from MRC or HTA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights complex financial aspects of planning and conducting trials, especially where multiple funders are involved. Recognition of the importance of financial stability and of the need for appropriate training in this area should be paralleled by further similar research with a broader range of trials, aimed at understanding and facilitating the conduct of clinical research.

What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies.

BACKGROUND: A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. METHODS: The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. RESULTS: Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.