Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia

Ball, T

CATCH team,

Gamble, C

Gilbert, R

Harron, K

Lee, T

Macrae, D

Mok, Q

PLoS ONE

English

PubMed

AimsEnrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia.MethodsWe recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent.ResultsFive PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child.ConclusionsCo-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients

Harron, Katie

Lee, Twin

Ball, Tracy

Mok, Quen

Gamble, Carrol

Macrae, Duncan

Gilbert, Ruth

University of Liverpool Repository

Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care

CATCH team

UCL Discovery

A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research.

A survey of breast cancer patients’ views on entry into several clinical studies.

Artesunate versus quinine in the treatment of severe falciparum malaria in African children (AQUAMAT): an open-label, randomised trial.

Blood sample volumes in child health research: review of safe limits.

Communication about Children’s Clinical Trials as Observed and Experienced: Qualitative Study of Parents and Practitioners.

Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study.

Consistency between guidelines and reported practice for reducing the risk of catheter-related infection in British paediatric intensive care units.

Data analysis issues for protocols with overlapping enrollment.

Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: A trinational survey of researchers’ experiences, beliefs, and practices*.

Factors affecting consent in pediatric critical care research.

Group on Paediatric Intensive Care

Improving clinical trials in the critically ill.

Informed consent in the NICU setting: an ethically optimal model for research solicitation.

Malaria drug and vaccine trials in Africa: obstacles and opportunities.

Medical research involving children.

Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection.

On coenrollment in clinical resuscitation studies: Review and experience from randomized trials.

Randomised controlled trials in perinatal medicine: 2. Recruitment of a pregnant woman or her newborn child into more than one trial.

Safety, quality, efficacy: regulating medicines

Statistical issues arising in AIDS clinical trials.

Survey of unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards in European countries.

The unique challenges of enrolling patients into multiple clinical trials.

Unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards: prospective study.

Use of off-label and unlicensed drugs in paediatric intensive care unit.

What do parents think about enrolling their premature babies in several research studies? Arch Dis Child Fetal and neonatal edition 90:

Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care.

Katie Harron

Twin Lee

Tracy Ball

Quen Mok

Carrol Gamble

Duncan Macrae

Ruth Gilbert

null null

Crossref

Directory of Open Access Journals

AIMS: Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent. RESULTS: Five PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child. CONCLUSIONS: Co-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients

LSHTM Research Online

Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Liverpool Repository

UCL Discovery

Crossref

Directory of Open Access Journals

LSHTM Research Online