Coenrollment of critically ill patients in PROSPECT: characteristics and association with treatment efficacy and safety.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-09028-w
Alex Thabane, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Nicole Zytaruk, Jennie Johnstone, François Lauzier, Yaseen M Arabi, John Muscedere, France Clarke, Lori Hand, Irene Watpool, Rebecca Porteous, Gyan Sandu, Marlene Santos, Danae Tassy, John Marshall, Lauralyn McIntyre, Ian Ball, Bram Rochwerg, Tim Karachi, Ryan Zarychanski, Francois Marquis, Jan O Friedrich, Paul Lysecki, Deborah Cook
{"title":"Coenrollment of critically ill patients in PROSPECT: characteristics and association with treatment efficacy and safety.","authors":"Alex Thabane, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Nicole Zytaruk, Jennie Johnstone, François Lauzier, Yaseen M Arabi, John Muscedere, France Clarke, Lori Hand, Irene Watpool, Rebecca Porteous, Gyan Sandu, Marlene Santos, Danae Tassy, John Marshall, Lauralyn McIntyre, Ian Ball, Bram Rochwerg, Tim Karachi, Ryan Zarychanski, Francois Marquis, Jan O Friedrich, Paul Lysecki, Deborah Cook","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-09028-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Coenrollment is the enrollment of one participant into more than one study. While coenrollment can enhance research efficiency, it theoretically may result in treatment interactions that distort effect estimates. This study aimed to explore the sensitivity of safety and efficacy outcomes to coenrollment in an international, blinded randomized controlled trial evaluating probiotic use in critically ill patients (PROSPECT: Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial; [NCT02462590]).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this planned secondary analysis of PROSPECT, we performed Cox proportional hazards analyses to assess the sensitivity of the treatment effect of probiotics to coenrollment on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Secondarily, we examined the characteristics of coenrolled patients, studies, and centers using descriptive statistics, explored factors associated with coenrollment via a multilevel logistic regression model, and conducted Fisher's exact tests to evaluate the difference in adverse event rates (defined as Lactobacillus species from a sterile site or cultured as the sole or predominant organism from a nonsterile site) by coenrollment status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2650 PROSPECT participants recruited across 44 centers, 568 patients (21.4%) were coenrolled a total of 680 times across 115 studies. Coenrollment did not modify the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia (p = 0.630). Patients who were coenrolled in any other study had a higher rate of adverse events compared to non-coenrolled patients (p = 0.011); however, post hoc testing found no difference in adverse events between patients coenrolled specifically into at least one other randomized controlled trial and patients who were not coenrolled into another randomized controlled trial (i.e., coenrolled into an observational study or not coenrolled at all; p = 0.126). Multivariable analyses found more severely ill patients (p = 0.038) and patients from centers with a longer PROSPECT recruitment period (p = 0.047) were more likely to be coenrolled.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this international, blinded trial, one-fifth of patients enrolled were coenrolled in at least one other study, which had no influence on the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome. Coenrolled patients were more likely to have higher disease severity, and to be recruited from a center with a longer history of participation in PROSPECT.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The PROSPECT trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02462590. Registered on June 2015.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"370"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465574/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09028-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Coenrollment is the enrollment of one participant into more than one study. While coenrollment can enhance research efficiency, it theoretically may result in treatment interactions that distort effect estimates. This study aimed to explore the sensitivity of safety and efficacy outcomes to coenrollment in an international, blinded randomized controlled trial evaluating probiotic use in critically ill patients (PROSPECT: Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial; [NCT02462590]).

Methods: In this planned secondary analysis of PROSPECT, we performed Cox proportional hazards analyses to assess the sensitivity of the treatment effect of probiotics to coenrollment on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Secondarily, we examined the characteristics of coenrolled patients, studies, and centers using descriptive statistics, explored factors associated with coenrollment via a multilevel logistic regression model, and conducted Fisher's exact tests to evaluate the difference in adverse event rates (defined as Lactobacillus species from a sterile site or cultured as the sole or predominant organism from a nonsterile site) by coenrollment status.

Results: Of 2650 PROSPECT participants recruited across 44 centers, 568 patients (21.4%) were coenrolled a total of 680 times across 115 studies. Coenrollment did not modify the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia (p = 0.630). Patients who were coenrolled in any other study had a higher rate of adverse events compared to non-coenrolled patients (p = 0.011); however, post hoc testing found no difference in adverse events between patients coenrolled specifically into at least one other randomized controlled trial and patients who were not coenrolled into another randomized controlled trial (i.e., coenrolled into an observational study or not coenrolled at all; p = 0.126). Multivariable analyses found more severely ill patients (p = 0.038) and patients from centers with a longer PROSPECT recruitment period (p = 0.047) were more likely to be coenrolled.

Conclusion: In this international, blinded trial, one-fifth of patients enrolled were coenrolled in at least one other study, which had no influence on the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome. Coenrolled patients were more likely to have higher disease severity, and to be recruited from a center with a longer history of participation in PROSPECT.

Trial registration: The PROSPECT trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02462590. Registered on June 2015.

PROSPECT中危重患者的共同入组:特点及其与治疗疗效和安全性的关系。
共同入组是指一名参与者参加多个研究。虽然共入可以提高研究效率,但理论上可能导致治疗相互作用扭曲效果估计。本研究旨在探讨一项评估益生菌在危重患者中使用的国际盲法随机对照试验(PROSPECT:益生菌:预防重症肺炎和气管内定植试验;[NCT02462590])的安全性和有效性结果对共入组的敏感性。方法:在本次计划的PROSPECT二次分析中,我们进行了Cox比例风险分析,以评估益生菌治疗效果对呼吸机相关性肺炎主要结局的敏感性。其次,我们使用描述性统计检查了共入组患者、研究和中心的特征,通过多级逻辑回归模型探讨了与共入组相关的因素,并进行Fisher精确检验来评估共入组状态下不良事件发生率的差异(定义为来自无菌部位或作为非无菌部位的唯一或主要微生物培养的乳酸杆菌种类)。结果:在44个中心招募的2650名PROSPECT参与者中,568名患者(21.4%)在115项研究中共入组680次。共入组并没有改变益生菌对呼吸机相关性肺炎主要结局的影响(p = 0.630)。与未合并入组的患者相比,合并入组的患者不良事件发生率更高(p = 0.011);然而,事后检验发现,至少共入组一项随机对照试验的患者与未共入组另一项随机对照试验(即共入组观察性研究或未共入组;p = 0.126)的患者在不良事件方面没有差异。多变量分析发现,重症患者(p = 0.038)和来自PROSPECT招募期较长的中心的患者(p = 0.047)更有可能被合并入组。结论:在这项国际盲法试验中,五分之一的入组患者同时参加了至少一项其他研究,这些研究对益生菌对主要结局的影响没有影响。共同入组的患者更有可能患有更高的疾病严重程度,并且从参与PROSPECT历史较长的中心招募。试验注册:PROSPECT试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册NCT02462590。2015年6月注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信