Search

Background: Tranexamic acid (TXA) effectively attenuates hyperfibrinolysis and preemptive administration has been employed to reduce bleeding and blood transfusions in various surgical settings. However, TXA administration could be associated with adverse effects, such as seizures and thromboembolic risks. While patients with fibrinolysis shutdown showed greater thromboembolic complications and mortality, TXA administration may aggravate the degree of shutdown in these patients. Selective TXA administration based on the results of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) would be non-inferior to preemptive TXA administration in reducing postoperative bleeding and beneficial in reducing its risks in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Methods: This non-inferiority, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial will be performed in 3 tertiary university hospitals from August 2023 to March 2025. Seven hundred sixty-four patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery will be randomly allocated to get TXA as a preemptive (Group-P) or goal-directed strategy (Group-GDT) in each institution (with a 1:1 allocation ratio). After anesthesia induction, TXA (10 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg/h) and a placebo are administered after anesthesia induction in Group-P and Group-GDT, respectively. ROTEM tests are performed immediately before weaning from CPB and at the considerable bleeding post-CPB period. After getting the test results, a placebo is administered in Group-P (regardless of the test results). In Group-GDT, placebo or TXA is administered according to the results: placebo is administered if the amplitude at 10 min (A10-EXTEM) is ≥ 40 mm and lysis within 60 min (LI60-EXTEM) of EXTEM assay is ≥ 85%, or TXA (20 mg/kg) is administered if A10-EXTEM is < 40 mm or LI60-EXTEM is < 85%. The primary outcome is inter-group comparisons of postoperative bleeding (for 24 h). The secondary measures include comparisons of perioperative blood transfusion, coagulation profiles, reoperation, thromboembolic complications, seizures, in-hospital mortality, fibrinolysis phenotypes, and hospital costs. Discussion: The absence of inter-group differences in postoperative bleeding would support the selective strategy's non-inferiority in reducing postoperative bleeding in these patients. The possible reduction in thromboembolic risks, seizures, and fibrinolysis shutdown in Group-GDT would support its superiority in reducing TXA-induced adverse events and the cost of their management. Trial registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05806346 on March 28, 2023. Trial status: recruiting. Issue date: 2023 March 28 (by Tae-Yop Kim, MD, PhD). The trial was registered in the clinical registration on March 28, 2023 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05806346) and revised to the latest version of its protocol (version no. 8, August 26, 2024) approved by the institutional review boards (IRBs) of all 3 university hospitals (Konkuk University Medical Center, 2023–07-005–001, Asan Medical Center, 2023–0248, and Samsung Medical Center, SMC 2023–06-048–002). Its recruitment was started on August 1, 2023, and will be completed on December 31, 2024. Protocol amendment number: 08 (protocol version 08, August 26, 2024). Revision chronology: 2023 March 28:Original. 2023 April 10:Amendment No 01. The primary reason for the amendment is the modification of Arms (adding one arm for sub-group analyses) and Interventions, Outcome Measures, Study Design, Study Description, Study Status, Eligibility, and Study Identification. 2023 May 03:Amendment No 02. The primary reason for the amendment is to modify the Outcome Measures and update the study status. 2023 July 06:Amendment No 03. The primary reason for amendment is to update the chronological study status. 2023 July 07:Amendment No 04. The primary reason for the amendment is the modification of study information (the treatment category was changed to diagnostic, and Phase 4 was changed to not applicable) and a chronological update on the study status. 2023 September 12:Amendment No 06. The primary reason for the amendment is a chronological update in the study status and the inclusion of additional information regarding contacts/locations and oversight. 2023 December 29:Amendment No 07. The primary reason for the amendment is to modify the outcome measures (including detailed information on outcome measures, addition of extra secondary measures, and chronological updates in study status). 2024 August 26:Amendment No 08. The primary reason for the amendment is to add detailed descriptions regarding data handling and the names and roles of the participating institutions and to update the chronological process of the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The process of obtaining prior informed consent for experimental treatment does not fit well into the clinical reality of acute and intensive care. The therapeutic window of interventions is often short, which may reduce the validity of the consent and the rate of enrolled participants, to delay trial completion and reduce the external validity of the results. Deferred consent and 'opt-out' are alternative consent methods. The SafeBoosC-III trial was a randomised clinical trial investigating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring in extremely preterm infants during the first 3 days after birth, starting within the first 6 h after birth. Prior, deferred and opt-out consent were all allowed by protocol. This study aimed to evaluate the use of different consent methods in the SafeBoosC-III trial, Furthermore, we aimed to describe and analyse concerns or complaints that arose during the first 6 months of trial conduct. Methods: All 70 principal investigators were invited to join this descriptive ancillary study. Each principal investigator received a questionnaire on the use of consent methods in their centre during the SafeBoosC-III trial, including the possibility to describe any concerns related to the consent methods used during the first 6 months of the trial, as raised by the parents or the clinical staff. Results: Data from 61 centres were available. In 43 centres, only prior informed consent was used: in seven, only deferred consent. No centres used the opt-out method only, but five centres used prior and deferred, five used prior, deferred and opt-out (all possibilities) and one used both deferred and opt-out. Six centres applied to use the opt-out method by their local research ethics committee but were denied using it. One centre applied to use deferred consent but was denied. There were only 23 registered concerns during the execution of the trial. Conclusions: Consent by opt-out was allowed by the protocol in this multinational trial but only a few investigators opted for it and some research ethics boards did not accept its use. It is likely to need promotion by the clinical research community to unfold its potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with less than 5% 5-year survival. Inoperable patients often present with pain. Randomized controlled trial have shown that endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) improves pain control. It is usually performed by injecting bupivacaine followed by absolute alcohol around the celiac axis. Study design: Single center, randomized, double blind controlled trial of EUS-CPN with and without bupivacaine in patients with inoperable malignancy (pancreatic or other) involving the celiac plexus. The study was approved by research ethics board with approval number of 2022-9969, 21.151 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04951804). Discussion: We hypothesize that bupivacaine is superfluous and may actually reduce pain control by diluting the neurolytic effect of alcohol. Bupivacaine is also potentially dangerous in that it may produce serious adverse events such as arrythmias and cardiac arrest if inadvertently injected intravascularly. Conclusion: This randomized trial is designed to assess whether bupivacaine is of any value during EUS-CPN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic subjective tinnitus has become an increasingly serious hazard that affects the health-related quality of life for millions of people. Due to the lack of curative treatment strategies, this study aims to introduce a novel acoustic therapy named the modified tinnitus relieving sound (MTRS) for tinnitus and to evaluate the efficacy of MTRS in comparison with unmodified music (UM) which served as a control. Methods and analysis: A randomized, double-blinded, controlled, clinical trial will be carried out. Sixty-eight patients with subjective tinnitus will be recruited and randomly allocated into two groups in 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is Tinnitus Handicapped Inventory (THI); the secondary outcomes are the Hospital Anxiety and Distress Scale (HADS; HADS subscales for Anxiety (HADS-A) and Depression (HADS-D)), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for tinnitus, and tinnitus loudness matched by sensation level (SL). Assessment will be performed at baseline and at 1, 3, 9, and 12 months post-randomization. The sound stimulus will be persistent until 9 months after randomization, and be interdictory in the last three months. Data collected during the intervention process will be analyzed and compared to baseline. Ethics and dissemination: This trial received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University (No. 2017048). The study results will be disseminated via academic journals and conferences. Funding: This study is supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Development Program (SHDC12019119), the Excellent Doctors-Excellent Clinical Researchers Program (SYB202008), the Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QC1401200), the Shanghai Rising Stars of Medical Talent Youth Development Program (2021–99), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81800912), and the National Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (21ZR1411800). Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04026932. Registered on 18 July 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Dreaming reported after anesthesia remains a poorly understood phenomenon. At present, there is a hypothesis that dreaming occurs intraoperatively and is related to light or inadequate anesthesia; thus, in order to further verify the hypothesis, we choose elective surgery under general anesthesia to observe whether the generation of dreams is related to the dose of general anesthetics maintenance. Methods and analysis: This randomized, double-blind controlled trial to observe whether the generation of dreams is related to the dose of general anesthetics maintenance in the elective surgery under general anesthesia. A total of 124 participants will be randomly allocated to a low bispectral index or high bispectral index group at a ratio of 1:1. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is used to assess the anxiety and depression status of participants during the perioperative period. Ramsay score is used to assess patients' sedation level after surgery in the PACU. Modified Brice questionnaire and awareness classification are used to assess whether patients experienced dreaming during the surgery. Ethics and dissemination: This randomized, double-blind controlled trial received prospective ethics committee approval at the Human Research Ethical Committee of Shengjing Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China (Institutional Review Board registration number 2021PS664K), and was compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Equipoise, generally defined as uncertainty about the relative effects of the treatments being compared in a trial, is frequently referenced as an ethical standard for the conduct of randomized clinical trials. However, it seems to be defined in several different ways and may be used differently by different individuals. We explored how clinical researchers, chairs of research ethics boards, and philosophers of science define and reason with this term. Methods: We completed semi-structured interviews about clinical trial ethics with 15 clinical researchers, 15 research ethics board chairs, and 15 philosophers of science/bioethicists. Each participant was asked a standardized set of 10 questions, 4 of which were specifically about equipoise. All interviews were conducted telephonically and transcribed. Responses were grouped and analysed via a modified grounded theory method. Results: Forty-three respondents defined equipoise in 7 logically distinct ways, and 2 respondents could not explicitly define it. The most common definition, offered by 14 respondents (31%), defined "equipoise" as a disagreement at the level of a community of physicians. There was significant variability in definitions offered between and within groups. When asked how they would "operationalize" equipoise — i.e. check or test for its presence — respondents provided 7 alternatives, the most common being in relation to a literature review (15/45, 33%). The vast majority of respondents (35/45, 78%) felt the concept was helpful, though many acknowledged that the lack of a clear definition or operationalization was problematic. Conclusion: There is significant variation in definitions of equipoise offered by respondents, suggesting that parties within groups and between groups may be referring to different concepts when they reference "equipoise". This non-uniformity may impact fairness and transparency and opens the door to potential ethical problems in the evaluation of clinical trials — for instance, a patient may understand equipoise very differently than the researchers enrolling her in a trial, which could cause her agreement to participate to be based upon false premises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). Methods and analysis: This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. Ethics and dissemination: Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990. Registered on May 3, 2022 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)” randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed. Main text ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated. Conclusion Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

Background: In 1979, Marvin Zelen proposed a new design for randomized clinical trials intended to facilitate clinicians' and patients' participation. The defining innovation of Zelen's proposal was random assignment of treatment prior to patient or participant consent. Following randomization, a participant would receive information and asked to consent to the assigned treatment.Methods: This narrative review examined recent examples of Zelen design trials evaluating clinical and public health interventions.Results: Zelen designs have often been applied to questions regarding real-world treatment or intervention effects under conditions of incomplete adherence. Examples include evaluating outreach or engagement interventions (especially for stigmatized conditions), evaluating treatments for which benefit may vary according to participant motivation, and situations when assignment to a control or usual care condition might prompt a disappointment effect. Specific practical considerations determine whether a Zelen design is scientifically appropriate or practicable. Zelen design trials usually depend on identifying participants automatically from existing records rather than by advertising, referral, or active recruitment. Assessments of baseline or prognostic characteristics usually depend on available records data rather than research-specific assessments. Because investigators must consider how exposure to treatments or interventions might bias ascertainment of outcomes, assessment of outcomes from routinely created records is often necessary. A Zelen design requires a waiver of the usual requirement for informed consent prior to random assignment of treatment. The Revised Common Rule includes specific criteria for such a waiver, and those criteria are most often met for evaluation of a low-risk and potentially beneficial intervention added to usual care. Investigators and Institutional Review Boards must also consider whether the scientific or public health benefit of a Zelen design trial outweighs the autonomy interests of potential participants. Analysis of Zelen trials compares outcomes according to original assignment, regardless of any refusal to accept or participate in the assigned treatment.Conclusions: A Zelen design trial assesses the real-world consequences of a specific strategy to prompt or promote uptake of a specific treatment. While such trials are poorly suited to address explanatory or efficacy questions, they are often preferred for addressing pragmatic or policy questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) and sodium fluoride (NaF) are widely used for caries management. The objectives of this study are (i) to compare the caries-arresting and caries-preventive effects of SDF and NaF in young children, (ii) to determine children's and parents' acceptance of these fluoride therapies and (iii) to investigate the short-term (1 day) and long-term (1 year) adverse effects of these fluoride therapies.Methods/design: This is a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial to be conducted in Hong Kong kindergartens. The study has received approval from the local institutional review board. Written consent will be obtained from the parents/guardians before the study. The study will recruit at least 688 healthy 3-year-old children. This sample size is sufficient for an appropriate statistical analysis. Stratified randomisation will be performed for intervention allocation. The two intervention groups are 38% SDF and 5% NaF varnish applied on six primary upper anterior teeth. At baseline, one trained examiner will perform clinical examinations of the children in the kindergartens. The caries experience and oral hygiene status of each child will be recorded using the decayed, missing (due to caries) and filled primary tooth index and visual plaque index, respectively. Then, an independent operator will apply the assigned fluoride after the dental examinations. The examiner, the children and their parents will be blinded to the intervention allocation. In addition, a research assistant will evaluate the child's acceptance using interval rating scales for children's uncooperative behaviour. The examiner will then visit the children the next day to study the short-term potential adverse effects of the fluoride therapies. The same examiner will perform a follow-up examination after 1 year to evaluate the children's caries experiences, their oral hygiene statuses and the adverse effects of the fluoride. Parental questionnaires will be used to assess parental satisfaction and concerns about the fluoride therapies.Discussion: This study provides essential information about using SDF in an outreach kindergarten service for caries management from different aspects, which include the caries-arresting and caries-preventive effects, the adverse effects and children's and parents' acceptance. The success of the service can help to increase the adoption of SDF to reduce the global burden of early childhood caries.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04399369 . Registered on May 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undertaking recruitment for research in schools is an effective way to recruit young people for research participation but it is not without its challenges. Gaining access and coordinating many levels of different organisations and stakeholders whose cooperation and approval are crucial all add time and sometimes logistical challenges for the research team. In addition, recruiting around sensitive research topics can elicit additional barriers to successful research. The research team aimed to conduct a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial involving schools in a local government region in Victoria, Australia, to assess the effect of a vaccination-based educational card game called "Vaxcards" on vaccine consent returns. Schools were contacted via phone and email to determine which staff member would best be a contact point for a face-to-face meeting to discuss the methods and purpose of the study. Email follow-ups were scheduled to follow up non-responsive schools and consent forms. The minimum required sample size was 13. Of 31 eligible schools, 13 were recruited. The research team encountered several unanticipated challenges before achieving the recruitment target. The most common reasons for non-participation were being too busy with other commitments, concerns regarding the topic of vaccination being too sensitive, and concerns that key stakeholders in the school would not approve of the research topic of vaccination. One school required a review by a private research ethics board that rejected the study. Significant hesitancy and misinformation about vaccine science was observed that affected engagement with a small number of schools. This paper highlights the challenges of recruiting schools in the context of public anxieties about vaccines and has several important learning lessons for successful recruitment about sensitive topics. This includes navigating approval processes for research in schools, the importance of local champions, dealing with misinformation and the importance of strong relationships and organisational trust. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618001753246 . Prospectively registered on 25 October 2018 8:24:21 AM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) affects one in 54 children in the United States of America, and supporting people with ASD across the lifespan presents challenges that impact individuals, families, and communities and can be quite costly. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued recommendations for routine ASD screening at 18 and 24 months, but some research suggests that few pediatricians perform high-fidelity, standardized screening universally. Furthermore, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal ASD screening. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that children with ASD who have high fidelity; standardized screening will achieve superior outcomes at 5 years of age compared to children receiving usual care ASD detection strategies.Methods: This is a cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial in 3 sites in the USA. Pediatric practices will be randomized to implement universal, standardized, high-fidelity toddler screening or usual care, with randomization stratified by the practice size. The study will enroll 3450 children, approximately half in each group. From this sample, we anticipate 100 children to be diagnosed with ASD. Children in both groups receiving an ASD diagnosis will be administered the Early Start Denver Model, an evidence-based early intervention addressing social, communication, and cognitive functioning. Treatment will last for 1 year, with up to 20 h per week of therapy for children with ASD.Results: Primary outcomes measured at baseline, following treatment, and at 4 and 5 years of age include ASD symptom severity (Brief Observation of Social Communication Change (BOSCC)) and cognitive functioning (Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) and Differential Abilities Scale-II (DAS-II)). Secondary outcomes in children include measures of adaptive functioning, ASD symptoms, and kindergarten readiness; secondary analyses will also examine stress and empowerment among parents. Several novel exploratory measures will be included as well. The study will utilize a modified intention-to-treat analysis.Conclusions: This trial will evaluate the impact of universal, standardized, high-fidelity screening for ASD among children at 18 months of age, with a goal of providing evidence to support this strategy to detect ASD in toddlers in order to start treatment as young as possible and maximize outcomes.Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Drexel University (IRB protocol: 1607004653). All findings will be provided by the principal investigator via email; data will be available through the NIMH Data Archive ( https://nda.nih.gov/ ).Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333629 . Registered on November 7, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 (REMAP-COVID) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation at the first US site, the UPMC health system, and offer recommendations for implementation at other sites. Methods: To implement REMAP-COVID, we focused on six major areas: engaging leadership, trial embedment, remote consent and enrollment, regulatory compliance, modification of traditional trial management procedures, and alignment with other COVID-19 studies. Results: We recommend aligning institutional and trial goals and sharing a vision of REMAP-COVID implementation as groundwork for learning health system development. Embedment of trial procedures into routine care processes, existing institutional structures, and the electronic health record promotes efficiency and integration of clinical care and clinical research. Remote consent and enrollment can be facilitated by engaging bedside providers and leveraging institutional videoconferencing tools. Coordination with the central institutional review board will expedite the approval process. Protocol adherence, adverse event monitoring, and data collection and export can be facilitated by building electronic health record processes, though implementation can start using traditional clinical trial tools. Lastly, establishment of a centralized institutional process optimizes coordination of COVID-19 studies. Conclusions: Implementation of the REMAP-COVID trial within a large US healthcare system is feasible and facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration. This investment establishes important groundwork for future learning health system endeavors. Trial registration: NCT02735707. Registered on 13 April 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic "Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)" randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed.Main Text: ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated.Conclusion: Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a prevalent chronic pain disorder primarily characterized by myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). There is limited knowledge on the pathophysiology and mechanisms underlying MTrP and its development. Research has previously demonstrated the identification of MTrPs using ultrasound and vibration sonoelastography, although there is some contradictory evidence regarding if MTrPs present as hyper or hypoechoic regions. Electromyography (EMG) investigations of MTrP have demonstrated that MTrPs are usually located proximal to innervation zones where the peak surface EMG signals are obtained from. Central sensitization has been proposed as the primary mechanism underlying MTrP development. Central sensitization is associated with hyperexcitability of neuronal responses to normal or noxious stimuli. There is a need for a study that measures ultrasound image textural changes and motor unit activity responses in the muscle following sensitization. The purpose of this study is to determine whether sensitizing healthy muscle using capsaicin induces a regional change in image texture variables within the specific and surrounding muscles, as well as the motor unit frequency and amplitude changes that accompany them. This is an exploratory trial that aims to provide preliminary evidence on whether central sensitization is a direct cause of taut band and MTrP development.Methods: Ethical approval was obtained from the University Health Network (UHN) Research Ethics Board. This proposed study is a single centered, factorial, randomized placebo-controlled trial with two independent variables, depth of capsaicin application and dose of capsaicin, for a total of six treatment arms and three control treatment groups.Discussion: This will be the first study that assesses the B-mode ultrasound image texture of induced sensitized muscles and will provide more evidence on muscle motor unit activity and regional changes of central sensitization. Findings from this study may support one of few hypotheses proposed delineating the involvement of central sensitization in the development of trigger points.Trial Registration: National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03944889 . Registered on May 07, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome continues to drive significant morbidity and mortality after severe trauma. The incidence of trauma-induced, moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia, according to the Berlin definition, could be as high as 45%. Its pathophysiology includes the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which propagate tissue injuries by triggering neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). NETs include a DNA backbone coated with cytoplasmic proteins, which drive pulmonary cytotoxic effects. The structure of NETs and many DAMPs includes double-stranded DNA, which prevents their neutralization by plasma. Dornase alfa is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved recombinant DNase, which cleaves extracellular DNA and may therefore break up the backbone of NETs and DAMPs. Aerosolized dornase alfa was shown to reduce trauma-induced lung injury in experimental models and to improve arterial oxygenation in ventilated patients.Methods: TRAUMADORNASE will be an institution-led, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial in ventilated trauma patients. The primary trial objective is to demonstrate a reduction in the incidence of moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia in severe trauma patients during the first 7 days from 45% to 30% by providing aerosolized dornase alfa as compared to placebo. The secondary objectives are to demonstrate an improvement in lung function and a reduction in morbidity and mortality. Randomization of 250 patients per treatment arm will be carried out through a secure, web-based system. Statistical analyses will include a descriptive step and an inferential step using fully Bayesian techniques. The study was approved by both the Agence Nationale de la Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (ANSM, on 5 October 2018) and a National Institutional Review Board (CPP, on 6 November 2018). Participant recruitment began in March 2019. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals.Discussion: If early administration of inhaled dornase alfa actually reduces the incidence of moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia in patients with severe trauma, this new therapeutic strategy may be easily implemented in many clinical trauma care settings. This treatment may facilitate ventilator weaning, reduce the burden of trauma-induced lung inflammation and facilitate recovery and rehabilitation in severe trauma patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03368092. Registered on 11 December 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The startup phase of a clinical trial (CT) plays a vital role in the execution of new drug development. Hence, the aim of this study is to identify the factors responsible for delaying the CT startup phase. Further, it focuses on streamlining and reducing the cycle time of the startup phase of newly sponsored CTs.Methods: Thirteen sponsored CTs conducted between 2016 and 2017 at the Clinical Research Department of King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were considered for this study. Eight trials were analyzed to identify the data specific to startup metrics using the FOCUS-PDCA cycle (Find an improvement area-Organize a team-Clarify current practices-Understand the source of variation/problem-Select a Strategy-Plan-Do-Check-Act). Six measures incorporated in the metrics were (1) date of initial contact with site to the signing of confidentiality agreement, (2) date of receiving questionnaire from sponsor to date of its completion, (4) time taken to review protocol and approve investigational drug service form, and (5) time taken to study protocol and approve pharmacy and pathology and clinical laboratory medicine form and date of receipt of institutional review board (IRB) submission package to final IRB approval. Fishbone analysis was used to understand the potential causes of process variation. Mean (SD) time was calculated for each metric before and after implementation of the intervention protocol to analyze and compare percentage reduction in the mean cycle time of CTs. Data were represented as mean (SD), and the P value was calculated for each metric. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.Results: Of the various potential factors of delay identified through fishbone analysis, the two major ones were lack of a well-defined timeline for approval and review of the study protocol and inconsistent IRB meetings. After introduction of the new intervention protocol, the entire CT life cycle was reduced by 45.6% (mean [SD], 24.8 [8.2] weeks vs. 13.5 [11.6] weeks before and after the intervention, respectively).Conclusion: Various factors are responsible for the delay of the startup phase of CTs, and understanding the impact of each element allows for optimization and faster execution of the startup phase of CTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), a debilitating and progressive chronic pain condition that significantly impacts quality of life, is one of the common complications seen with long-standing diabetes mellitus. Neither pharmacological treatments nor low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has provided significant and long-term pain relief for patients with PDN. This study aims to document the value of 10-kHz SCS in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone in patients with refractory PDN.Methods: In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN), 216 subjects with PDN will be assigned 1:1 to receive 10-kHz SCS combined with CMM or CMM alone after appropriate institutional review board approvals and followed for 24 months. Key inclusion criteria include (1) symptoms of PDN for at least 12 months, (2) average pain intensity of at least 5 cm-on a 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS)-in the lower limbs, and (3) an appropriate candidate for SCS. Key exclusion criteria include (1) large or gangrenous ulcers or (2) average pain intensity of at least 3 cm on VAS in the upper limbs or both. Along with pain VAS, neurological assessments, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and patient satisfaction will be captured. The primary endpoint comparing responder rates (≥50% pain relief) and safety rates between the treatment groups will be assessed at 3 months. Several secondary endpoints will also be reported on.Discussion: Enrollment commenced in 2017 and was completed in 2019. This study will help to determine whether 10-kHz SCS improves clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment for PDN that is refractory to CMM.Trial Registration: ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03228420 (registered 24 July 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers and institutional review boards often consider it inappropriate for patients to be asked to consent to more than one study despite there being no regulatory prohibition on coenrollment in most countries. There are however ethical, safety, statistical, and practical considerations relevant to co-enrollment, particularly in surgery and perioperative medicine, but co-enrollment can be done if such concerns can be resolved. Preventing eligible patients from co-enrolling in studies which they would authentically value participating in, and whose material risks and benefits they understand, violates their autonomy - and thus contravenes a fundamental principle of research ethics. Statistical issues must be considered but can be addressed. In most cases each trial can be analyzed separately and validly using standard intention to treat principles; selection and other biases can be avoided if enrollment into the second trial is not dependent upon randomized treatment in the first trial; and valid interaction analyses can be performed for each trial by considering the patient's status in the other trial at the time of randomization in the index trial. Clinical research with a potential to inform and improve clinical practice is valuable and should be supported. The ethical, safety, statistical, and practical aspects of co-enrollment can be managed, providing greater opportunity for research-led improvements in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With cannabis medicines now obtaining legal status in many international jurisdictions (generally on the authorisation of a medical professional), a rapid increase in consumer demand for access to cannabis as a therapeutic option in the treatment and management of a range of indications is being noted. Despite this accessibility, knowledge on optimal use is lacking. Further drug development and clinical trials at regulatory standards are necessary both if a better understanding of the efficacy of cannabis medicines, optimal product formulation and indication-specific dosing is needed and to ensure the broader quality and safety of cannabis medicines in the clinical setting.To enable this, clinical, academic and public calls for the undertaking of rigorous clinical trials to establish an evidence base for the therapeutic use of cannabis medicines have been made internationally. While this commitment to undertake human studies with cannabis medicines is welcomed, it has highlighted unique challenges, notably in the review stages of ethics and governance. This often results in lengthy delays to approval by Human Research Ethics Committees (herein 'HREC', Australia's nomenclature for Institutional Review Boards) and trial commencement. A principal concern in these cases is that in contrast to clinical trials using other more conventional pharmaceutical products, trials of cannabis medicines in humans often involve the use of an investigational product prior to some (or any) of the preclinical and pharmaceutical safety issues being established. This paucity of data around product safety, potential drug interactions, continuity of supply, shelf life and product storage results in apprehension by HRECs and governance bodies to endorse trials using cannabis medicines.This manuscript draws from the experiences of Australian researchers and staff involved in clinical trials of cannabis medicines to describe some of the common difficulties that may be faced in the HREC approval process. It also presents practical advice aimed to assist researchers, HRECs and governance officers navigate this complex terrain. While the authors' experiences are situated within the Australian setting, many of the barriers described are applicable within the international context and thus, the solutions that have been proposed are typically adaptive for use within other jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain.Objectives and Methods: Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs.Discussion: The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials management can be studied using project management theory. The CYCLE pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine the feasibility of a future rehabilitation trial of early in-bed cycling in the intensive care unit (ICU). In-bed cycling is a novel intervention, not typically available in ICUs. Implementation of this intervention requires personnel with specialized clinical expertise caring for critically ill patients and use of the in-bed cycle. Our objective was to describe the implementation and conduct of our pilot RCT using a project management approach.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed activities, timelines, and personnel involved in the trial. We organized activities into four project management phases: initiation, planning, execution, and monitoring and controlling. Data sources included Methods Centre documents used for trial coordination and conduct, and the trial data set. We report descriptive statistics as counts and proportions and also medians and quartiles, and we summarize the lessons learned.Results: Seven ICUs in Canada participated in the trial. Time from research ethics board and contracts submission to first enrolment was a median (first quartile, third quartile) of 185 (146, 209) and 162 (114, 181) days, respectively. We trained 128 personnel on the CYCLE pilot RCT protocol, and 80 (63%) completed trial-related activities. Four sites required additional training after start-up due to staff turnover and leaves of absence. Over 15 months, we screened 864 patients: 256 were eligible and 66 were enrolled. Despite an 85% consent rate, 74% (190/256) of eligible patients were not randomized, largely (80% [152/190]) due to physiotherapist availability. Thirteen percent of recruitment weeks were lost due to physiotherapist staffing shortages. We highlight five key lessons learned: (1) prepare and anticipate site needs; (2) communicate regularly; (3) proactively analyse and act on process measure data; (4) develop contingency plans; (5) express appreciation to participating sites.Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the scope of relevant activities, rigorous training and monitoring, number and types of required personnel, and time required to conduct a multicentre ICU rehabilitation intervention trial. Our lessons learned can help others interested in implementing complex intervention trials, such as rehabilitation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02377830 . Registered prospectively on 4 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Institutional review boards must guarantee the ethical acceptability of a randomized controlled trial before it is conducted. However, some may regard an unbalanced randomization ratio as reflecting an absence of uncertainty between the groups being compared. The objective was to assess institutional review board members' perceptions of whether unbalanced randomization in randomized controlled trials is justified and ethically acceptable.Methods: Institutional review board members worldwide completed a survey involving clinical vignettes modeling situations classically advocated to explain the use of unbalanced randomization. Institutional review board members were asked whether unbalanced randomization was justified and ethically sound. Answers were collected by using visual analog scales. Data were analyzed by principal component analysis, and a hierarchical ascending classification was created. Verbatim answers were assessed by qualitative content analysis.Results: We analyzed responses from 148 institutional review board members. Three classes of respondents were identified: class 1 (n = 58; 39.2%), mostly skeptics who disagreed with unbalanced randomization, whatever the justification; class 2 (n = 46; 31.1%), believers who considered that unbalanced randomization was acceptable whatever the justification, except cost; and class 3 (n = 44; 29.7%), circumstantial believers for whom unbalanced randomization may be justified for methodological and safety issues but not cost or ethical issues. When institutional review board members were asked whether unbalanced randomization respected the equipoise principle, the mean quotation was low (4.5 ± 3.3 out of 10), especially for class 1 members.Conclusions: Institutional review board members perceive unbalanced randomization heterogeneously in terms of its justification and its ethical validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance.Main Body: Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views.Conclusion: While none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]