Search

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death and years of life lost worldwide. While effective treatments are available for both acute and chronic disease stages there are unmet needs for effective interventions to support patients in health behaviors required for secondary prevention. Psychosocial distress is a common comorbidity in patients with CHD and associated with substantially reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), poor health behavior, and low treatment adherence.Methods: In a confirmatory, randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel group, multicenter behavioral intervention trial we will randomize 440 distressed CHD patients with at least one insufficiently controlled cardiac risk factor to either their physicians' usual care (UC) or UC plus 12-months of blended collaborative care (TeamCare = TC). Trained nurse care managers (NCM) will proactively support patients to identify individual sources of distress and risk behaviors, establish a stepwise treatment plan to improve self-help and healthy behavior, and actively monitor adherence and progress. Additional e-health resources are available to patients and their families. Intervention fidelity is ensured by a treatment manual, an electronic patient registry, and a specialist team regularly supervising NCM via videoconferences and recommending protocol and guideline-compliant treatment adjustments as indicated. Recommendations will be shared with patients and their physicians who remain in charge of patients' care. Since HRQoL is a recommended outcome by both, several guidelines and patient preference we chose a ≥ 50% improvement over baseline on the HeartQoL questionnaire at 12 months as primary outcome. Our primary hypothesis is that significantly more patients receiving TC will meet the primary outcome criterion compared to the UC group. Secondary hypotheses will evaluate improvements in risk factors, psychosocial variables, health care utilization, and durability of intervention effects over 18-30 months of follow-up.Discussion: TEACH is the first study of a blended collaborative care intervention simultaneously addressing distress and medical CHD risk factors conducted in cardiac patients in a European health care setting. If proven effective, its results can improve long-term chronic care of this vulnerable patient group and may be adapted for patients with other chronic conditions.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00020824, registered on 4 June, 2020; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00020824. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.Methods: We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.Results: The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.Conclusions: The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.Results: Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a 'study team', bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals' willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.Conclusions: This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to the burden of disease and the number one cause of death worldwide. From 1990 until today, more people died from coronary heart disease than from any other cause. CVD is regularly treated with minimally or non-minimally invasive off- or on-pump cardiothoracic surgery and several interventions related to the outcome of the surgical procedures have been evaluated in clinical trials, but heterogeneity in outcome reporting hinders comparison of interventions across trials and limits the ability of research synthesis. This problem is encountered with the introduction of core outcome sets (COSs), which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials for a specific clinical field.Methods/design: This study protocol describes the methods used to develop a COS for all types of cardiac surgery effectiveness trials. We aim to reach consensus on what to measure in an international three-round eDelphi exercise involving adult patients in need or after cardiothoracic surgery, cardiothoracic surgeons, cardiologists, anaesthesiologists, nursing staff and researchers with expertise in this particular field of medical research. Subsequently, outcome measurement instruments (how to measure) will be determined. Recommendations on COS development given by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Initiative were followed.Discussion: The proposed COS aims to provide methodological guidance for future cardiothoracic surgical trials to ensure the comparability of effects of interventions across studies and enable research synthesis. This does not imply that primary outcomes should always and exclusively be those of the COS. However, to ensure the comparability of results across trials, the outcomes included in this COS should be considered for inclusion besides measuring trial-specific clinical endpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial.Methods: In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model.Results: We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed.Conclusion: Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data sharing from clinical trials is one way of promoting fair and transparent conduct of clinical trials. It would maximise the use of data and permit the exploration of additional hypotheses. On the other hand, the quality of secondary analyses cannot always be ascertained, and it may be unfair to investigators who have expended resources to collect data to bear the additional burden of sharing. As the discussion on the best modalities of sharing data evolves, some of the practical issues that may arise need to be addressed. In this paper, we discuss issues which impede the use of data even when sharing should be possible: (1) multicentre studies requiring consent from all the investigators in each centre; (2) remote access platforms with software limitations and Internet requirements; (3) on-site data analysis when data cannot be moved; (4) governing bodies for data generated in one jurisdiction and analysed in another; (5) using programmatic data collected as part of routine care; (6) data collected in multiple languages; (7) poor data quality. We believe these issues apply to all primary data and cause undue difficulties in conducting analysis even when there is some willingness to share. They can be avoided by anticipating the possibility of sharing any clinical data and pre-emptively removing or addressing restrictions that limit complete sharing. These issues should be part of the data sharing discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to make individual patient data from the International Stroke Trial (IST), one of the largest randomised trials ever conducted in acute stroke, available for public use, to facilitate the planning of future trials and to permit additional secondary analyses.Methods: For each randomised patient, we have extracted data on the variables assessed at randomisation, at the early outcome point (14-days after randomisation or prior discharge) and at 6-months and provide them as an analysable database.Results: The IST dataset includes data on 19 435 patients with acute stroke, with 99% complete follow-up. Over 26.4% patients were aged over 80 years at study entry. Background stroke care was limited and none of the patients received thrombolytic therapy.Conclusions: The IST dataset provides a source of primary data which could be used for planning further trials, for sample size calculations and for novel secondary analyses. Given the age distribution and nature of the background treatment given, the data may be of value in planning trials in older patients and in resource-poor settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]