Search

BackgroundSurvivors of critical illness are at risk of developing physical dysfunction following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. ICU-based rehabilitation interventions, such as early in-bed cycle ergometry, may improve patients’ short-term physical function. ObjectiveBefore unblinding and trial database lock, we describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) randomized controlled trial (RCT). MethodsCYCLE is a 360-patient, international, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group RCT (1:1 ratio) with blinded primary outcome assessment at 3 days post-ICU discharge. The principal investigator and statisticians of CYCLE prepared this SAP with approval from the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes (including adverse events) and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. The primary outcome of the CYCLE trial is the Physical Function Intensive Care Unit Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge. The PFIT-s is a reliable and valid performance-based measure. We plan to use a frequentist statistical framework for all analyses. We will conduct a linear regression to evaluate the primary outcome, incorporating randomization as an independent variable and adjusting for age (≥65 years versus

Abstract Rationale The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) statement as a framework to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches. Methods On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy) and collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge) and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study’s primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures. Results Our main Methods Centre mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, developing standardized internal tools focused on high-risk points in the protocol for monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance to conduct some research activities remotely. For study sites, our strategies included determining how institutional pandemic research policies applied to CYCLE, communicating with the Methods Centre about capacity to continue any part of the research, and developing contingency plans to ensure the protocol was delivered as intended. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), 5 patients were still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 required primary outcomes, and 17 required 90-day assessments. With these mitigation strategies, we attempted 100% of ICU interventions, 83% of primary outcomes, and 100% of 90-day assessments per our protocol. Conclusions We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that it also provides a helpful framework for reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management. Trial registration NCT03471247. Registered on March 20, 2018.

Introduction In-bed leg cycling with critically ill patients is a promising intervention aimed at minimising immobility, thus improving physical function following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. We previously completed a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) which supported the feasibility of a large RCT. In this report, we describe the protocol for an international, multicentre RCT to determine the effectiveness of early in-bed cycling versus routine physiotherapy (PT) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.Methods and analysis We report a parallel group RCT of 360 patients in 17 medical-surgical ICUs and three countries. We include adults (≥18 years old), who could ambulate independently before their critical illness (with or without a gait aid), ≤4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and ≤7 days ICU length of stay, and an expected additional 2-day ICU stay, and who do not fulfil any of the exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, patients are randomised using a web-based, centralised system to either 30 min of in-bed cycling in addition to routine PT, 5 days per week, up to 28 days maximum, or routine PT alone. The primary outcome is the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge measured by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Participants, ICU clinicians and research coordinators are not blinded to group assignment. Our sample size estimate was based on the identification of a 1-point mean difference in PFIT-s between groups.Ethics and dissemination Critical Care Cycling to improve Lower Extremity (CYCLE) is approved by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating centres and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project 1345). We will disseminate trial results through publications and conference presentations.Trial registration number NCT03471247 (Full RCT); NCT02377830 (CYCLE Vanguard 46 patient internal pilot).

OBJECTIVES:. Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN:. Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING:. University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS:. Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS:. None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:. An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%; p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%; p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:. Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.