ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine how authors of systematic reviews that include randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that are stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs-tRCTs) address the potential for overestimation of treatment effects and to determine the weight of the tRCTs on pooled results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE and evaluated systematic reviews that include at least one tRCT. We documented approaches that authors used to address potential overestimates of treatment effect introduced by including tRCTs. We assessed the impact of tRCTs in meta-analyses on the outcomes that led to their early termination. RESULTS: Of 96 systematic reviews that included at least one tRCT, 44 (46%) included >1 tRCT, 68 (71%) did not mention truncation at all, and 2 (2%) documented early stopping for benefit as a criterion for methodological quality. Of 47 meta-analyses in which authors reported, or we could calculate the contribution of the tRCTs to the pooled result, the tRCTs contributed more than 40% of the weight in 16/47 (34%). CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses including tRCTs fail to consider the possible overestimates of effect that may result from early stopping for benefit. We recommend safeguards that address this possibility.
