A Decision-Making Grid for Coenrollment in Multiple Clinical Trials
- PMID: 39679895
- DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000802
A Decision-Making Grid for Coenrollment in Multiple Clinical Trials
Abstract
Background: Although subject coenrollment into multiple trials is desirable, thoughtful consideration is required to avoid compromising each trial's scientific integrity.
Objective: We developed a Decision-Making Grid (GRID) to help investigators determine whether a clinical trial is compatible with a second clinical trial, thus allowing coenrollment, or if it should be considered competing, prohibiting coenrollment.
Methods: The GRID evaluates 21 elements across four domains: scientific integrity, data interpretation, feasibility/burden, and additional considerations. Optimally, each principal investigator shares their protocol, completes the GRID independently, and then meets to compare their perspectives, seeking a mutually acceptable agreement.
Results: The GRID has facilitated coenrollment decision-making for the RESTORE and PROSpect pediatric critical care clinical trials. In RESTORE , five trials were reviewed; one was approved for coenrollment, and four were deemed competing. In PROSpect , 26 trials have been reviewed; 20 are approved for coenrollment, and six were deemed competing. In both RESTORE and PROSpect , the principal investigators of multiple trials arranged a mutually acceptable sharing agreement.
Discussion: The GRID provides a systematic process to help investigators evaluate the effect of coenrollment in multiple clinical trials.
Keywords: clinical trials; coenrollment; decision support technique.
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
-
- Anisetti B., Rost N., Barrett K., Gottesman R., Graff-Radford J., Kittner S., Boden-Albala B., Cissel H., Mills B., Carman K., Vemuri P., Wruck L., Bhapkar M., Donahue K., Gupta S., Meschia J. F. (2022). Looking for opportunities to co-enroll: The DISCOVERY study experience. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases , 31, 106862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106862 - DOI
-
- Beardsall K., Brocklehurst P., Ahluwalia J. (2008). Should newborn infants be excluded from multiple research studies? The Lancet , 372, 503–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61200-3 - DOI
-
- Brankovic M., Kardys I., Steyerberg E. W., Lemeshow S., Markovic M., Rizopoulos D., Boersma E. (2019). Understanding of interaction (subgroup) analysis in clinical trials. European Journal of Clinical Investigation , 49, e13145. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13145 - DOI
-
- Cafferty F. H., Coyle C., Rowley S., Berkman L., MacKensie M., Langley R. E. (2017). Co-enrolment of participants into multiple cancer trials: Benefits and challenges. Clinical Oncology , 29, e126–e133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2017.02.014 - DOI
-
- Cook D., Ferguson N. D., Hand L., Austin P., Zhou Q., Adhikari N. K. J., Danesh V., Arabi Y., Matte A. L., Clarke F. E., Mehta S., Smith O., Wise M. P., Friedrich J. O., Keenan S. P., Hanna S., Meade M. O.; OSCILLation for ARDS Treated Early Investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. (2015). Coenrollment in a randomized trial of high-frequency oscillation: Prevalence, patterns, predictors, and outcomes. Critical Care Medicine , 43, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000692 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
