Characteristics, consent patterns, and challenges of randomized trials using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design - A scoping review

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 174; p. 111469
• Main Authors: Amstutz, Alain, Schönenberger, Christof M., Speich, Benjamin, Griessbach, Alexandra, Schwenke, Johannes M., Glasstetter, Jan, James, Sophie, Verkooijen, Helena M., Nickolls, Beverley, Relton, Clare, Hemkens, Lars G., Chammartin, Frédérique, Gerber, Felix, Labhardt, Niklaus D., Schandelmaier, Stefan, Briel, Matthias
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2024; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Clinical trials; cmRCT; Cohort analysis; Cohort Studies; Confidence intervals; Consent; Consents; Data collection; Design; Feasibility studies; Humans; Infectious diseases; Informed consent; Informed Consent - statistics & numerical data; Intervention; Medical research; Metaresearch; Randomization; Randomized clinical trial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods; Research Design; Trial design; Trials within cohorts; TwiCs; TwiCs; Randomized clinical trial; Metaresearch; cmRCT; Trial design; Trials within cohorts
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921; 1878-5921
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111469

Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) is a pragmatic design approach that may overcome frequent challenges of traditional randomized trials such as slow recruitment, burdensome consent procedures, or limited external validity. This scoping review aims to identify all randomized controlled trials using the TwiCs design and to summarize their design characteristics, ways to obtain informed consent, output, reported challenges and mitigation strategies. Systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, trial registries and citation tracking up to December 2022. TwiCs were defined as randomized trials embedded in a cohort with postrandomization consent for the intervention group and no specific postrandomization consent for the usual care control group. Information from identified TwiCs was extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, and registry entries. We analyzed the information descriptively and qualitatively to highlight methodological challenges and solutions related to nonuptake of interventions and informed consent procedure. We identified a total of 46 TwiCs conducted between 2005 and 2022 in 14 different countries by a handful of research groups. The most common medical fields were oncology (11/46; 24%), infectious diseases (8/46; 17%), and mental health (7/46; 15%). A typical TwiCs was investigator-initiated (46/46; 100%), publicly funded (36/46; 78%), and recruited outpatients (27/46; 59%). Excluding eight pilot trials, only 16/38 (42%) TwiCs adjusted their calculated sample size for nonuptake of the intervention, anticipating a median nonuptake of 25% (interquartile range 10%-32%) in the experimental arm. Seventeen TwiCs (45%) planned analyses to adjust effect estimates for nonuptake. Regarding informed consent, we observed three patterns: 1) three separate consents for cohort participation, randomization, and intervention (17/46; 37%); 2) combined consent for cohort participation and randomization and a separate intervention consent (10/46; 22%); and 3) consent only for cohort participation and intervention (randomization consent not mentioned; 19/46; 41%). Existing TwiCs are globally scattered across a few research groups covering a wide range of medical fields and interventions. Despite the potential advantages, the number of TwiCs remains small. The variability in consent procedures and the possibility of substantial nonuptake of the intervention warrants further research to guide the planning, implementation, and analysis of TwiCs.