IMproving PArticipation of patients in Clinical Trials - rationale and design of IMPACT

BACKGROUND: One of the most commonly reported problems of randomised trials is that recruitment is usually slower than expected. Trials will cost more and take longer, thus delaying the use of the results in clinical practice, and incomplete samples imply decreased statistical power and usefulness of its results. We aim to identify barriers and facilitators for successful patient recruitment at the level of the patient, the doctor and the hospital organization as well as the organization and design of trials over a broad range of studies. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform two cohort studies and a case-control study in the Netherlands. The first cohort study will report on a series of multicenter trials performed in a nationwide network of clinical trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. A questionnaire will be sent to all clinicians recruiting for these trials to identify determinants - aggregated at centre level - for the recruitment rate. In a case control-study nested in this cohort we will interview patients who refused or consented participation to identify factors associated with patients' consent or refusal. In a second cohort study, we will study trials that were prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register. Using a questionnaire survey we will assess whether issues on hospital organization, trial organization, planning and trial design were associated with successful recruitment, i.e. 80% of the predefined number of patients recruited within the planned time. DISCUSSION: This study will provide insight in barriers and facilitators for successful patient recruitment in trials. The results will be used to provide recommendations and a checklist for individual trialists to identify potential pitfalls for recruitment and judge the feasibility prior to the start of the study. Identified barriers and motivators coupled to evidence-based interventions can improve recruitment of patients in clinical trials

Praktijkvariatie in het gebruik van remifentanil tijdens de partus: Een beeld van de toepassing in de Nederlandse ziekenhuizen = [Practice variation in the application of remifentanil during labour: an overview of its application in Dutch hospitals]

Objective: To survey (a) the frequency of the use of patient-controlled analgesic remifentanil-PCA during labour in the Netherlands; (b) considerations by obstetricians whether or not to offer remifentanil-PCA; (c) target population for remifentanil-PCA and (d) the application of maternal monitoring.Design: Descriptive survey.Method: A questionnaire was sent to all 81 Dutch hospitals with a labour ward. The following subjects were covered: (a) available methods for pharmacological pain relief; (b) considerations by obstetricians whether or not to offer remifentanil-PCA; (c) target population for remifentanil-PCA; (d) maternal monitoring and (e) the hospital's birth data for the year 2016. The hospital pharmacist was asked for the number of remifentanil dispensed in 2016-2017.Results: The questionnaire was completed by 81 obstetricians (100% response rate). Remifentanil-PCA was available in 59 out of 81 (73%) of the hospitals with a mean use of 23% of the births (range 16-56%) in those units. In 34 (58%) of these hospitals, remifentanil-PCA is available for all women, and in 25 (42%) it was for a selected group of women. Most frequently mentioned considerations for offering remifentanil-PCA were 'a need for an alternative for epidural analgesia' and 'at the request of pregnant women' reported a respective 55 (93%) and 46 (78%) times. In hospitals where remifentanil-PCA was not offered, the following motives were given for this policy: 'epidural analgesia is the most effective method of pain relief during labour'; 'risk of serious maternal complications'; and 'sufficient monitoring during labour not feasible in delivery rooms'.Conclusion: A large variation between Dutch hospitals exists in the application of remifentanil-PCA during labour. In the majority of the hospitals, remifentanil-PCA is available for all women. The most common motives mentioned by obstetricians for its use are 'a need for an alternative for epidural analgesia' and 'at the request of pregnant women'

Does measurement of intrauterine pressure have predictive value during oxytocin-augmented labor?

In a previous randomized trial that compared monitoring uterine contractions with an intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) versus external monitoring, we demonstrated that use of an IUPC did not improve the outcome of labor. To provide insight in the lack of a positive effect, we evaluated level of IUP in Montevideo units (MU) in correlation with dysfunctional labor and adverse neonatal outcome. Here, we present two secondary analyses on the 503 women who had IUP measured in the trial. Firstly, we assessed labor outcome in relation to the highest IUP measured at any time during labor. Secondly, we assessed labor outcome to the IUP registered at the last vaginal examination during the first stage of labor in two study groups (above and below 200 MU). Women with lower IUP were statistically significant older, had pregnancies with a longer gestational age, longer labors and neonates with a higher birth weight. The risk of a cesarean section was higher in women who had low IUP during labor (Likelihood Ratio 1.6 for IUP   300 MU). IUP was not associated with neonatal outcome. IUP is associated with mode of delivery. However, use of internal tocodynamometry does not improve birth outcome

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour:randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour : randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551

COVID-19-related mortality in kidney transplant and dialysis patients: Results of the ERACODA collaboration

Background. Patients on kidney replacement therapy comprise a vulnerable population and may be at increased risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only limited data are available on outcomes in this patient population. Methods. We set up the ERACODA (European Renal Association COVID-19 Database) database, which is specifically designed to prospectively collect detailed data on kidney transplant and dialysis patients with COVID-19. For this analysis, patients were included who presented between 1 February and 1 May 2020 and had complete information available on the primary outcome parameter, 28-day mortality. Results. Of the 1073 patients enrolled, 305 (28%) were kidney transplant and 768 (72%) dialysis patients with a mean age of 60 6 13 and 67 6 14 years, respectively. The 28-day probability of death was 21.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 14.3\u201330.2%] in kidney transplant and 25.0% (95% CI 20.2\u201330.0%) in dialysis patients. Mortality was primarily associated with advanced age in kidney transplant patients, and with age and frailty in dialysis patients. After adjusting for sex, age and frailty, in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between transplant and dialysis patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.59\u20131.10, P \ubc 0.18]. In the subset of dialysis patients who were a candidate for transplantation (n \ubc 148), 8 patients died within 28 days, as compared with 7 deaths in 23 patients who underwent a kidney transplantation &lt;1 year before presentation (HR adjusted for sex, age and frailty 0.20, 95% CI 0.07\u20130.56, P &lt; 0.01). Conclusions. The 28-day case-fatality rate is high in patients on kidney replacement therapy with COVID-19 and is primarily driven by the risk factors age and frailty. Furthermore, in the first year after kidney transplantation, patients may be at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality as compared with dialysis patients on the waiting list for transplantation. This information is important in guiding clinical decision-making, and for informing the public and healthcare authorities on the COVID-19-related mortality risk in kidney transplant and dialysis patients

Recovery of dialysis patients with COVID-19: health outcomes 3 months after diagnosis in ERACODA

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related short-term mortality is high in dialysis patients, but longer-term outcomes are largely unknown. We therefore assessed patient recovery in a large cohort of dialysis patients 3 months after their COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsWe analyzed data on dialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 March 2021 from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA). The outcomes studied were patient survival, residence and functional and mental health status (estimated by their treating physician) 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Complete follow-up data were available for 854 surviving patients. Patient characteristics associated with recovery were analyzed using logistic regression.ResultsIn 2449 hemodialysis patients (mean&nbsp;±&nbsp;SD age 67.5&nbsp;±&nbsp;14.4&nbsp;years, 62% male), survival probabilities at 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were 90% for nonhospitalized patients (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;1087), 73% for patients admitted to the hospital but not to an intensive care unit (ICU) (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;1165) and 40% for those admitted to an ICU (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;197). Patient survival hardly decreased between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. At 3 months, 87% functioned at their pre-existent functional and 94% at their pre-existent mental level. Only few of the surviving patients were still admitted to the hospital (0.8-6.3%) or a nursing home (∼5%). A higher age and frailty score at presentation and ICU admission were associated with worse functional outcome.ConclusionsMortality between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis was low and the majority of patients who survived COVID-19 recovered to their pre-existent functional and mental health level at 3 months after diagnosis

Association of obesity with 3-month mortality in kidney failure patients with COVID-19

Background: In the general population with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Given the typically observed obesity paradox among patients on kidney function replacement therapy (KFRT), especially dialysis patients, we examined the association of obesity with mortality among dialysis patients or living with a kidney transplant with COVID-19. Methods: Data from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) were used. KFRT patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 31 January 2021 were included. The association of Quetelet's body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), divided into: <18.5 (lean), 18.5-24.9 (normal weight), 25-29.9 (overweight), 30-34.9 (obese I) and ≥35 (obese II/III), with 3-month mortality was investigated using Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses. Results: In 3160 patients on KFRT (mean age: 65 years, male: 61%), 99 patients were lean, 1151 normal weight (reference), 1160 overweight, 525 obese I and 225 obese II/III. During follow-up of 3 months, 28, 20, 21, 23 and 27% of patients died in these categories, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratios (HRs) for 3-month mortality were 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10, 2.47], 1 (ref.), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.28), 1.17 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.46) and 1.71 (95% CI: 1.27, 2.30), respectively. Results were similar among dialysis patients (N = 2343) and among those living with a kidney transplant (N = 817) (Pinteraction = 0.99), but differed by sex (Pinteraction = 0.019). In males, the HRs for the association of aforementioned BMI categories with 3-month mortality were 2.07 (95% CI: 1.22, 3.52), 1 (ref.), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.78. 1.21), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.33) and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.91), respectively, and in females corresponding HRs were 1.34 (95% CI: 0.70, 2.57), 1 (ref.), 1.31 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.85), 1.54 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.26) and 2.49 (95% CI: 1.62, 3.84), respectively. Conclusion: In KFRT patients with COVID-19, on dialysis or a kidney transplant, obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. This is in contrast to the obesity paradox generally observed in dialysis patients. Additional studies are required to corroborate the sex difference in the association of obesity with mortality