Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials:Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

<div><p>Background</p><p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians’ difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians’ reported intentions compared with their actual practices.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (<i>n =</i> 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (<i>n =</i> 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (<i>n =</i> 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded.</p><p>Interviews revealed that clinicians’ sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician’s expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters’ practices more widely.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians’ personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.</p></div

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment

OBJECTIVES: To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. RESULTS: One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was "best for them". Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation

Accelerated SARS-CoV-2 Intrahost Evolution Leading to Distinct Genotypes During Chronic Infection

The chronic infection hypothesis for novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant emergence is increasingly gaining credence following the appearance of Omicron. Here, we investigate intrahost evolution and genetic diversity of lineage B.1.517 during a SARS-CoV-2 chronic infection lasting for 471 days (and still ongoing) with consistently recovered infectious virus and high viral genome copies. During the infection, we find an accelerated virus evolutionary rate translating to 35 nucleotide substitutions per year, approximately 2-fold higher than the global SARS-CoV-2 evolutionary rate. This intrahost evolution results in the emergence and persistence of at least three genetically distinct genotypes, suggesting the establishment of spatially structured viral populations continually reseeding different genotypes into the nasopharynx. Finally, we track the temporal dynamics of genetic diversity to identify advantageous mutations and highlight hallmark changes for chronic infection. Our findings demonstrate that untreated chronic infections accelerate SARS-CoV-2 evolution, providing an opportunity for the emergence of genetically divergent variants

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Trevo versus Merci retrievers for thrombectomy revascularisation of large vessel occlusions in acute ischaemic stroke (TREVO 2): a randomised trial

BackgroundPresent mechanical devices are unable to achieve recanalisation in up to 20-40% of large vessel occlusion strokes. We compared efficacy and safety of the Trevo Retriever, a new stent-like device, with its US Food and Drug Administration-cleared predecessor, the Merci Retriever.MethodsIn this open-label randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients at 26 sites in the USA and one in Spain. We included adults aged 18-85 years with angiographically confirmed large vessel occlusion strokes and US National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 8-29 within 8 h of symptom onset. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) with sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to thrombectomy with Trevo or Merci devices. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤68 years vs 69-85 years) and NIHSS scores (≤18 vs 19-29) with alternating blocks of various sizes. The primary efficacy endpoint, assessed by an unmasked core laboratory, was thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scores of 2 or greater reperfusion with the assigned device alone. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of procedure-related adverse events. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01270867.FindingsBetween Feb 3, 2011, and Dec 1, 2011, we randomly assigned 88 patients to the Trevo Retriever group and 90 patients to Merci Retriever group. 76 (86%) patients in the Trevo group and 54 (60%) in the Merci group met the primary endpoint after the assigned device was used (odds ratio 4·22, 95% CI 1·92-9·69; p(superiority)&lt;0·0001). Incidence of the primary safety endpoint did not differ between groups (13 [15%] patients in the Trevo group vs 21 [23%] in the Merci group; p=0·1826).InterpretationPatients who have had large vessel occlusion strokes but are ineligible for (or refractory to) intravenous tissue plasminogen activator should be treated with the Trevo Retriever in preference to the Merci Retriever.FundingStryker Neurovascular

Early and Empirical High-Dose Cryoprecipitate for Hemorrhage After Traumatic Injury: The CRYOSTAT-2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Critical bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate in patients with trauma. Hemorrhage is exacerbated by a complex derangement of coagulation, including an acute fibrinogen deficiency. Management is fibrinogen replacement with cryoprecipitate transfusions or fibrinogen concentrate, usually administered relatively late during hemorrhage. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether survival could be improved by administering an early and empirical high dose of cryoprecipitate to all patients with trauma and bleeding that required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study. Patients were enrolled at 26 UK and US major trauma centers from August 2017 to November 2021. Eligible patients were injured adults requiring activation of the hospital's major hemorrhage protocol with evidence of active hemorrhage, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at any time, and receiving at least 1 U of a blood component transfusion. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive standard care, which was the local major hemorrhage protocol (reviewed for guideline adherence), or cryoprecipitate, in which 3 pools of cryoprecipitate (6-g fibrinogen equivalent) were to be administered in addition to standard care within 90 minutes of randomization and 3 hours of injury. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Among 1604 eligible patients, 799 were randomized to the cryoprecipitate group and 805 to the standard care group. Missing primary outcome data occurred in 73 patients (principally due to withdrawal of consent) and 1531 (95%) were included in the primary analysis population. The median (IQR) age of participants was 39 (26-55) years, 1251 (79%) were men, median (IQR) Injury Severity Score was 29 (18-43), 36% had penetrating injury, and 33% had systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at hospital arrival. All-cause 28-day mortality in the intention-to-treat population was 26.1% in the standard care group vs 25.3% in the cryoprecipitate group (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75-1.23]; P = .74). There was no difference in safety outcomes or incidence of thrombotic events in the standard care vs cryoprecipitate group (12.9% vs 12.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol, the addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to standard care did not improve all cause 28-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04704869; ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN14998314

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of participatory and informed consent (PIC)

Background Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding. Methods Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above. Results DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained. Conclusions The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.Methods and findingsSix pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.ConclusionsCommunicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience