Scott Yh Kim1,2, James Flory3, Clare Relton4. 1. 1 Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. 2 Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. 3 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. 4 University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We describe one such design, appropriate for unmasked pragmatic clinical trials in which the control arm receives usual care, called "Trials within Cohorts" that is increasingly used in various countries because of its efficiency in recruitment, advantages in reducing subject burden, and ability to better mimic real-world consent processes. METHODS: Descriptive, ethical, and US regulatory analysis of the Trials within Cohorts design. RESULTS: Trials within Cohorts design involves, after recruitment into a cohort, randomization of eligible subjects, followed by an asymmetric treatment of the two arms: those selected for the experimental arm provide informed consent for the intervention trial, while the data from the control arm are used based on prior broad permission. Thus, unlike the traditional Zelen post-randomization consent design, the cohort participants are informed about future research within the cohort; however, the extent of this disclosure currently varies among studies. Thus, ethical analysis is provided for two types of situations: when the pre-randomization disclosure and consent regarding the embedded trials are fairly explicit and detailed versus when they consist of only general statements about future data use. These differing ethical situations could have implications for how ethics review committees apply US research rules regarding waivers and alterations of informed consent. CONCLUSION: Trials within Cohorts is a promising new pragmatic randomized controlled trial design that is being increasingly used in various countries. Although the asymmetric consent procedures for the experimental versus control arm subjects can initially raise ethical concerns, it is ethically superior to previous post-randomization consent designs and can have important advantages over traditional trial designs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: With increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We describe one such design, appropriate for unmasked pragmatic clinical trials in which the control arm receives usual care, called "Trials within Cohorts" that is increasingly used in various countries because of its efficiency in recruitment, advantages in reducing subject burden, and ability to better mimic real-world consent processes. METHODS: Descriptive, ethical, and US regulatory analysis of the Trials within Cohorts design. RESULTS: Trials within Cohorts design involves, after recruitment into a cohort, randomization of eligible subjects, followed by an asymmetric treatment of the two arms: those selected for the experimental arm provide informed consent for the intervention trial, while the data from the control arm are used based on prior broad permission. Thus, unlike the traditional Zelen post-randomization consent design, the cohort participants are informed about future research within the cohort; however, the extent of this disclosure currently varies among studies. Thus, ethical analysis is provided for two types of situations: when the pre-randomization disclosure and consent regarding the embedded trials are fairly explicit and detailed versus when they consist of only general statements about future data use. These differing ethical situations could have implications for how ethics review committees apply US research rules regarding waivers and alterations of informed consent. CONCLUSION: Trials within Cohorts is a promising new pragmatic randomized controlled trial design that is being increasingly used in various countries. Although the asymmetric consent procedures for the experimental versus control arm subjects can initially raise ethical concerns, it is ethically superior to previous post-randomization consent designs and can have important advantages over traditional trial designs.
Authors: Joanne M van der Velden; Helena M Verkooijen; Danny A Young-Afat; Johannes Pm Burbach; Marco van Vulpen; Clare Relton; Carla H van Gils; Anne M May; Rolf Hh Groenwold Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: J P M Burbach; S A Kurk; R R J Coebergh van den Braak; V K Dik; A M May; G A Meijer; C J A Punt; G R Vink; M Los; N Hoogerbrugge; P C Huijgens; J N M Ijzermans; E J Kuipers; M E de Noo; J P Pennings; A M T van der Velden; C Verhoef; P D Siersema; M G H van Oijen; H M Verkooijen; M Koopman Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Clare Relton; Paul Bissell; Christine Smith; Joanna Blackburn; Cindy L Cooper; Jon Nicholl; Angela Tod; Rob Copeland; Amanda Loban; Tim Chater; Kate Thomas; Tracy Young; Carol Weir; Gill Harrison; Alison Millbourn; Rachel Manners Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Natasha Mitchell; Catherine Hewitt; Joy Adamson; Steve Parrott; David Torgerson; David Ekers; John Holmes; Helen Lester; Dean McMillan; David Richards; Karen Spilsbury; Christine Godfrey; Simon Gilbody Journal: Trials Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Andrew W Brown; Stella Aslibekyan; Dennis Bier; Rafael Ferreira da Silva; Adam Hoover; David M Klurfeld; Eric Loken; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Nir Menachemi; Greg Pavela; Dale Schoeller; Colby J Vorland; Leah D Whigham; David B Allison Journal: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 11.208
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Spencer Phillips Hey; Merrick Zwarenstein; Jennifer Zhe Zhang; Hayden P Nix; Jamie C Brehaut; Joanne E McKenzie; Steve McDonald; Charles Weijer; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Joana B Neves; David Cullen; Lee Grant; Miles Walkden; Steve Bandula; Prasad Patki; Ravi Barod; Faiz Mumtaz; Michael Aitchison; Elena Pizzo; Veronica Ranieri; Norman Williams; William Wildgoose; Kurinchi Gurusamy; Mark Emberton; Axel Bex; Maxine G B Tran Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David Gibbes Miller; Scott Y H Kim; Xiaobai Li; Neal W Dickert; James Flory; Carlisle P Runge; Clare Relton Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-12-07