Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study)

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. Methods/Design Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs. We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. Discussion Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

Fine particulate matter measurements in Swiss restaurants, cafés and bars: what is the effect of spatial separation between smoking and non-smoking areas?

We performed 124 measurements of particulate matter (PM(2.5)) in 95 hospitality venues such as restaurants, bars, cafés, and a disco, which had differing smoking regulations. We evaluated the impact of spatial separation between smoking and non-smoking areas on mean PM(2.5) concentration, taking relevant characteristics of the venue, such as the type of ventilation or the presence of additional PM(2.5) sources, into account. We differentiated five smoking environments: (i) completely smoke-free location, (ii) non-smoking room spatially separated from a smoking room, (iii) non-smoking area with a smoking area located in the same room, (iv) smoking area with a non-smoking area located in the same room, and (v) smoking location which could be either a room where smoking was allowed that was spatially separated from non-smoking room or a hospitality venue without smoking restriction. In these five groups, the geometric mean PM(2.5) levels were (i) 20.4, (ii) 43.9, (iii) 71.9, (iv) 110.4, and (v) 110.3 microg/m(3), respectively. This study showed that even if non-smoking and smoking areas were spatially separated into two rooms, geometric mean PM(2.5) levels in non-smoking rooms were considerably higher than in completely smoke-free hospitality venues. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PM(2.5) levels are considerably increased in the non-smoking area if smoking is allowed anywhere in the same location. Even locating the smoking area in another room resulted in a more than doubling of the PM(2.5) levels in the non-smoking room compared with venues where smoking was not allowed at all. In practice, spatial separation of rooms where smoking is allowed does not prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in nearby non-smoking areas.