Discussant: Eric B. Larson, MD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
Speakers: Vince Mor, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health; Greg Simon, MD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute; and Lynn DeBar, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
Held at the Washington State Convention Center in Seattle, this large gathering of health services researchers and policy analysts will include workshops, poster and podium sessions, emerging issues panels, policy roundtables, and special topic sessions. Other NIH Collaboratory members planning to present at the meeting include Leah Tuzzio, MPH, Jerry Jarvik, MD, MPH, Miguel Vazquez, MD, Kathryn James, MPH, Gloria Coronado, PhD, and Beverly Green, MD, MPH.
“Attendees will learn about the challenges of pilot testing, studying patient-reported outcomes, using existing data, and the multiple levels of implementation in dynamic systems.” – Leah Tuzzio, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
A recent study published in BMC Medicine found that many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) self-labeled as “pragmatic” were actually explanatory in nature, in that they assessed investigational medicines compared with placebo to test efficacy before licensing. Of the RCTs studied, one-third were pre-licensing, single-center, or placebo-controlled trials and thus not appropriately described as pragmatic.
Appropriately describing the design and characteristics of a pragmatic trial helps readers understand the trial’s relevance for real-world practice. The authors explain that RCTs suitably termed pragmatic compare the effectiveness of 2 available medicines or interventions prescribed in routine clinical care. The purpose of such pragmatic RCTs is to provide real-world evidence for which interventions should be recommended or prioritized.
The authors recommend that investigators use a standard tool, such as the CONSORT Pragmatic Trials extension or the PRECIS-2 tool, to prospectively evaluate the pragmatic characteristics of their RCTs. Use of these tools can also assist funders, ethics committees, and journal editors in determining whether an RCT has been accurately labeled as pragmatic.
The BMC Medicine article cites NIH Collaboratory publications by Ali et al. and Johnson et al., as well as the Living Textbook, in its discussion of pragmatic RCTs and the tools available to assess their relevance for real-world practice.
“Submissions of RCTs to funders, research ethics committees, and peer-reviewed journals should include a PRECIS-2 tool assessment done by the trial investigators. Clarity and accuracy on the extent to which an RCT is pragmatic will help [to] understand how much it is relevant to real-world practice.” (Dal-Ré et al. 2018)
The FDA is conducting a public workshop on Monday, March 19, to obtain input from stakeholders—including patients, patient advocates, academic and medical researchers, expert practitioners, drug developers, and other interested persons—to inform the drafting of a patient-focused drug development guidance as required by the 21st Century Cures Act. Workshop attendees will discuss considerations for development and submission of a proposed draft guidance regarding patient experience data submitted by an external stakeholder. The guidance is intended to help stakeholders continue progress in developing new medicines to respond to patient’s needs.
Registration for the event, either in person or via a live webcast, ends March 12. More meeting details, including background materials, will be posted by FDA as available.
The groundbreaking “All of Us” research program, which aims to enroll and track more than a million people, is asking prospective researchers, community organizations, and citizen scientists for suggestions regarding potential research questions. Ideas can be submitted through a special research page and are due by February 23, 2018. At a Research Priorities Workshop in March 2018, meeting attendees will use the input to set research priorities that will drive the development of the All of Us research platform and associated tools.
At the NIH Collaboratory Steering Committee meeting in May 2017, we asked Ellen Tambor, a member of the Stakeholder Engagement Core, to reflect on the first 5 years of the Core’s work and the challenges ahead. She says it’s key for stakeholder engagement to take place throughout the entire healthcare system, from leadership to the frontline providers and staff. And, because of the nature of pragmatic trials conducted in clinical settings, engagement is essential from the early stages through trial completion. Tambor also suggests asking two questions to ensure the right people are involved throughout pragmatic research: Who is going to use the evidence that results from the study? Who will help ensure that the study is implemented as seamlessly as possible?
“Pragmatic trials take stakeholder engagement to a new level of importance in terms of both the scope of engagement and the array of potential stakeholders.” Ellen Tambor
A new research project modeled on the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has been created to investigate non-drug approaches to helping U.S. service members and veterans manage chronic pain. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) jointly announced the NIH-DoD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory project this week. The project, which includes funding for 12 demonstration projects over the next 6 years, will focus on large-scale, cost-effective, pragmatic trials conducted in military and VA healthcare systems.
As part of their ongoing effort to improve the speed and efficiency of conducting clinical trials, the NIH-FDA Joint Leadership Council has created a draft clinical trial protocol template. The template contains instructional and sample text intended to assist NIH-funded investigators in writing protocols for phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that require Investigational New Drug (IND) or Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) applications. Feedback is sought from investigators, investigator-sponsors, institutional review board members, and other stakeholders involved in protocol development and review.
Our goal is to provide an organized way for creative investigators to describe their plans so that others can understand them. – Dr. Pamela McInnes, NIH
Details on the rationale and development of the protocol template are on these blog posts:
The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) has released its Annual Reportfor 2015. The report describes major achievements from the previous year, including new recommendations and related tools and checklists for improving the safety, efficiency, and overall quality of clinical research.
Highlights of the 2015 Annual Report include recommendations on topics including:
Ethics review processes
Good Clinical Practice training for trial investigators
Research protocol design
Engagement of patient groups as equal partners in clinical research
Informed consent processes
Safety reporting systems for research participants
A public-private partnership whose many stakeholders include government agencies, advocacy groups, professional societies, academic research organizations, and representatives from the medical products industry, CTTI’s mission is to “identify and promote practices that will increase the quality and efficiency of clinical trials.”
A PDF version of the report is available here. Previous Annual Reports are also available on the CTTI website.
The Active Bathing to Eliminate (ABATE) Infection trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02063867) has completed its intervention phase—the first NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory UH3 Demonstration Project to reach this major milestone. The large-scale, cluster-randomized pragmatic clinical trial (PCT) was designed to assess an approach for reducing multidrug-resistant organisms and hospital-associated infections (HAIs) in nearly 200 non-critical care hospital units affiliated with Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) across the United States.
The ABATE study is led by principal investigator Dr. Susan Huang of the University of California, Irvine, who stated “We are elated to reach the successful completion of the trial thanks to an incredible investigative team at HCA, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Rush University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and UC Irvine. We look forward to what the trial data will tell us and hope that we can continue to find effective ways to protect patients from infection.”
In the ABATE study, patients hospitalized in non-critical care units were bathed either according to the hospital unit’s usual care procedures (the control group) or bathed with the topical antibacterial agent chlorhexidine (plus nasal administration of the antibiotic mupirocin for those patients who were colonized or infected with, or had a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA] [the intervention group]). The study investigators will compare the number of unit-attributable, multidrug-resistant organisms in clinical cultures between the study arms; these organisms include vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), MRSA, and gram-negative bacteria. In addition, the investigators will compare the number of unit-attributable infections in the bloodstream and urinary tract (all pathogens) and Clostridium difficile infections. Cultures were collected at baseline and post intervention and will be assessed to determine whether resistance emerged to decolonization products.
“We are elated to reach the successful completion of the trial thanks to an incredible investigative team at HCA, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Rush University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and UC Irvine.We look forward to what the trial data will tell us and hope that we can continue to find effective ways to protect patients from infection.”
Healthcare-associated infections caused by common bacteria, including MRSA and VRE, are a leading cause of preventable illness and death in the United States and are associated with upward of $6.5 billion in annual healthcare costs. Although these bacteria normally live on the skin or in the nose, under certain circumstances they can cause serious or even life-threatening infections. Hospitalized patients who are ill or who have weakened immune systems are especially at risk for such infections. Because these pathogens are resistant to many antibiotics, they can be difficult to treat.
In intensive care units (ICUs), reducing the amount of such bacteria (a process referred to as decolonization) by treating patients’ skin with chlorhexidine and their noses with mupirocin ointment has been shown to reduce MRSA infections and all-cause bacteremias. However, relatively little is known about the effects of decolonization in hospital settings outside of critical care units, although this is where the majority of such infections occur. The ABATE trial, in contrast, is testing its bathing and decolonization strategy in adult medical, surgical, oncology, and step-down units (pediatric, psychology, peri-partum, and bone marrow transplantation units were excluded).
Over the course of the study, more than a million showers and baths were taken, and all sites have completed the intervention. The next steps for the ABATE investigators are to finish strain collection over the coming weeks, and then clean, validate, and analyze the data over the coming months.
Patients’ views concerning research on medical practices: implications for consent(Weinfurt et al. 2015) describes the results of focus group sessions that elicited a range of patients’ views and opinions about different types of research on usual medical practices. The authors state that “our data suggest that effective policy and guidance will involve balancing different patients’ interests and potentially different sets of interests for different types of research studies on usual medical practices.”
Ethics of research in usual care settings: data on point(Sugarman 2016) introduces a special five-article supplement in the American Journal of Bioethics, stating that the “growing empirical ethics literature regarding research in usual care settings provides data to inform conceptual and policy debates regarding this research and suggests areas that require further study.”
These publications were supported by a bioethics supplement awarded to the Regulatory/Ethics Core group by the NIH’s Office of the Director.