July 3, 2019: New Article Describes the Public’s Beliefs Regarding Responsibility to Participate in Research

Findings from a new article suggest that the majority of patients do not feel a personal responsibility to participate in clinical research. In the article, Kevin Weinfurt, Li Lin, and Jeremy Sugarman report the results of a national survey of nearly 3000 people regarding their attitudes towards research responsibilities as well as their trust in doctors, healthcare systems, and medical research. Ethical frameworks for learning health systems have suggested that patients have a responsibility to contribute to learning activities, including research. The findings from this survey suggest that most patients in the U.S. do not currently endorse such a responsibility.

“These data provide a useful snapshot of the public’s views toward the obligation to participate in research. It is unclear how, if at all, these views will shift with increased efforts to create mature learning health systems. And if such views do not shift, it is uncertain what that would mean for the success of learning health systems.” —Kevin Weinfurt, PhD

Read the full article: Public Views Regarding the Responsibility of Patients, Clinicians, and Institutions to Participate in Research in the U.S.

For more on alternate approaches to consent, see the Living Textbook Chapter on Consent, Disclosure, and Non-Disclosure

June 13, 2019: Experience With Pragmatic Clinical Trials Gains Momentum

At the NIH Collaboratory Steering Committee Meeting in May 2019, participants shared their perspectives on the evolving landscape of embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs). Three initiatives were presented: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the NIH-DoD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory, and the HEAL (Helping to End Addiction Long-term) Initiative. Although many challenges remain, the conduct of ePCTs is gaining momentum, and the synergy between the initiatives, along with the fellowship they engender, will continue to help pave the way for more embedded pragmatic research in the future.

Dr. Ann Trontell, Associate Director of Clinical Effectiveness and Decision Science at PCORI, shared PCORI’s experience with pragmatic clinical studies. Since 2014, PCORI has awarded $494 million dollars for 43 pragmatic studies that range in size from 425 to 100,000 participants (median, approximately 1700). The studies include 2 observational, 27 individually randomized, and 14 cluster randomized trials in a wide range of therapeutic areas.

Dr. Trontell urged those developing proposals for pragmatic trials to make them fit for purpose, as opposed to emphasizing pragmatism, a theme echoed in the Developing a Compelling Grant Application chapter of the Living Textbook.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Kerns, a director of the NIH-DoD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory, shared progress with pragmatic trials designed to evaluate whether evidence-based nonpharmacological approaches are effective for pain management among US military personnel and veterans.

Modeled after the NIH Collaboratory, the Pain Management Collaboratory is supporting 11 projects through a 2-year planning phase and a 2- to 4-year implementation phase. Subject matter experts at the Pain Management Collaboratory Coordinating Center (PMC3) support the projects by sharing tools, best practices, and resources.

 

Dr. Wendy Weber, Program Officer for the NIH Collaboratory Coordinating Center, introduced the HEAL initiative, which is designed to enhance pain management and improve prevention and treatment strategies for opioid misuse and addiction. The goal of the initiative is to provide scientific solutions to the opioid crisis. It includes a set of large-scale pragmatic trials that will receive logistical and technical support from the NIH Collaboratory Coordinating Center.

 

While experience with ePCTs is growing, many distinct challenges remain. As the conduct of ePCTs gains momentum, there is a rich opportunity to use collective experiences to refine best practices to real-world evidence generation and help solve urgent public health problems.

May 31, 2019: Adapting Clinical Trial Design to Meet the Needs of Learning Health Systems (Harriette Van Spall, MD, MPH)

Speaker

Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, FRCPC
Associate Professor of Medicine
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact
McMaster University
Population Health Research Institute

Topic

Adapting Clinical Trial Design to Meet the Needs of Learning Health Systems

Keywords

Learning health system; Pragmatic clinical trial; Patient-Centered Care Transitions in Heart Failure (PACT-HF); Heart failure; Stepped-wedge cluster trial

Key Points

  • Characteristics of a learning health system include:
    • Possessing a culture of knowledge and quality improvement
    • Encouraging research innovation by embedding research into clinical practice and generating knowledge at the point of care
    • Harnessing data from electronic health records and claims/administrative databases
    • Fostering trust between research and clinical teams
    • Engaging patients, clinicians, and key stakeholders
  • The Patient-Centered Care Transitions in Heart Failure (PACT-HF) trial evaluated the effectiveness of a group of transitional care services in patients hospitalized for HF within a publicly funded healthcare system.
  • Challenges of a learning health system include integrating care, intervention, and communications across silos; streamlining workflow; preventing “contamination” of usual care; and the limited interoperability of EHRs and slow updates to claims/administrative datasets.

Discussion Themes

Efficacy in explanatory randomized clinical trials (RCTs) does not equate to effectiveness in real-world settings.

Decisions about implementation of an intervention are not made “live”; you must wait until the study has ended, all the data are available for analysis, and analysis is complete before you can inform decision-maker partners about the risks and benefits of the intervention.

Read more about the PACT-HF study and results in JAMA Network (Van Spall et al. 2019)

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1

April 26, 2019: The VERITAS Trial: Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation at the Intersection of Evidence, Implementation, and Policy (Janet Prvu Bettger, ScD)

Speaker

Janet Prvu Bettger, ScD, FAHA
Associate Professor
Duke Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Duke Clinical Research Institute

Topic

The VERITAS Trial: Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation at the Intersection of Evidence, Implementation, and Policy

Keywords

Rehabilitation; Virtual physical therapy; Patient outcomes; Physical therapy; Orthopaedic surgery; Total knee replacement; Digital technology; Telehealth

Key Points

  • The VERITAS trial evaluated the effects of physical therapy–supported virtual exercise compared with traditional home- or clinic-based physical therapy after total knee replacement. Outcome measures included 90-day health service use costs; patient-centered outcomes; and differential improvement from 6 weeks to 3 months.
  • The Center for Connected Health Policy found that while most states currently have established telehealth policies for primary care providers, these often do not include physical or occupational therapists.
  • Tele-rehabilitation facilitates communication between the patient and physical therapist in real time. The VERA™ technology provides a virtual physical therapist assistant for patients and clinicians, offering a digital interface that includes patient education, longitudinal functional assessments, telehealth video conferencing, personalized exercises, and remote monitoring of patient progress.

Discussion Themes

Study results support effectiveness and safety hypotheses: that tele-rehabilitation is noninferior to traditional physical therapy with respect to range of motion, walking speed, pain, or rehospitalization. However, it was not shown that the intervention is noninferior with respect to falls after hospital discharge.

Because virtual physical therapy interventions can save total costs, prevent readmissions, and improve mobility, it will be important to expand access to tele-rehabilitation and to advance policies that include physical therapists.

Read more about the VERITAS project and at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Tags

#telehealth, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1

April 5, 2019: The ENGAGES Pragmatic Trial and the Power of Negative Thinking (Michael S. Avidan, MBBCh)

Speaker

Michael S. Avidan, MBBCh
Dr. Seymour and Rose T. Brown Professor of Anesthesiology
Chief, Division of Clinical and Translational Research
School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology
Washington University in St. Louis

Topic

The ENGAGES Pragmatic Trial and the Power of Negative Thinking

Keywords

Pragmatic clinical trial; Surgery; Electroencephalography; EEG-guided anesthesia; Postoperative delirium; Older patients; Patient-centered outcomes; ENGAGES

Key Points

  • The ENGAGES pragmatic trial evaluated whether electroencephalogram-guided anesthetic administration decreases postoperative delirium incidence in older patients undergoing major surgery.
  • Delirium is a disturbance in consciousness or change in cognition for a short period of time as a consequence of a medical illness. 25% to 50% of older adults experience delirium after major surgery, and the number is even higher for ICU patients.
  • The ENGAGES trial found that, among older adults undergoing major surgery, EEG-guided anesthetic administration, compared with usual care, did not decrease the incidence of postoperative delirium.

Discussion Themes

Aside from the intensity of patient follow-up and the expertise needed to deliver the EEG-guided protocol, the ENGAGES study fulfilled the criteria for a pragmatic clinical trial as shown in PRECIS-2 ratings.

Clinicians participating in ENGAGES were not researchers but carried out the intervention on the ground. They understood the appeal of it and found it easy to implement.

With respect to study findings, instead of referring to “negative” or “null” findings, why not say, “this is what we found and these are interesting findings.”

Learn more about the results of the ENGAGES trial in JAMA (Feb 2019).

Tags

#delirium, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1, @WUSTL_med

March 6, 2018: Results of the Active Bathing to Eliminate (ABATE) Infection Trial Published in The Lancet

The Active Bathing to Eliminate (ABATE) Infection trial compared routine bathing to decolonization with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. Similar interventions have been found to reduce multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units (ICUs), and this was the first large-scale trial in non-critical-care units. The primary outcome was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) clinical cultures attributed to participating units.

“We found that universal decolonization did not reduce infection in the overall population, but in post-hoc analyses of patients with medical devices the regimen was associated with significant reductions in all-cause bloodstream infections and MRSA or VRE clinical cultures.” —Huang et al. The Lancet 2019

The ABATE Infection trial was a large-scale pragmatic trial involving approximately189,000 patients in the baseline period and 340,000 patients in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. The trial was one of the first NIH Collaboratory Demonstration Projects, and in keeping with the Collaboratory’s mission, the investigators have helped expand the knowledge base about the design, conduct, and dissemination of pragmatic clinical trials.

January 18, 2019: Pragmatic Trials in End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD): HiLo (Myles Wolf, MD, MMSc)

Speaker

Myles Wolf, MD, MMSc
Charles Johnson, MD, Professor of Medicine
Chief, Duke Nephrology
Duke University School of Medicine

Topic

Pragmatic Trials in End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD): HiLo

Keywords

Pragmatic clinical trial; HiLo; End-stage renal disease; ESRD; Kidney disease; Hypophosphatemia; Serum phosphate; Hemodialysis; A vs B trials; Clinical equipoise; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIDDK

Key Points

  • With high event rates and few proven therapies, patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are in desperate need of clinical innovation.
  • The NIH Collaboratory’s HiLo Demonstration Project is a pragmatic, multicenter, cluster-randomized, open-label, noninferiority outcomes trial that will compare effects of two different phosphate management strategies in patients with ESRD.
  • The study hypothesizes that, compared with strict phosphate control, less stringent control will yield noninferior rates of all-cause hospitalization among patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis, as well as reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, enhance markers of diet and nutrition, and improve quality of life.

Discussion Themes

Dialysis clinic dieticians will have a pivotal role in implementing HiLo. They have established a rapport with patients and are among the most motivated caregivers on dialysis teams.

Individual patient-level informed consent for the HiLo trial will be via internet-linked tablets, paper forms, and educational materials including a video. Benefits of obtaining consent include promoting adherence, direct study updates and newsletters to participants, and ability to collect additional data without involving onsite study staff.

HiLo will be the first definitive clinical trial-grade evidence for opinion-based guidelines for phosphate management. Thus, results of HiLo have the potential to rapidly influence ESRD clinical practice.

Read more about the HiLo Demonstration Project in the Living Textbook.

Tags

#ESRD, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1, @DCRINews, @DukeKidney

January 11, 2019: FDA Releases Framework for Evaluating the Use of Real-World Evidence

To help fulfill the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act by accelerating medical product development and fostering innovation and advances in medicine, FDA recently created a framework for evaluating the use of real-world evidence. The framework is intended to help evaluate trials that use real-world data for the creation of real-world evidence.

  • Real-world data: routinely collected information about a person’s health status in the electronic health record, claims, registries, and other sources, including patient-generated sources.
  • Real-world evidence: reliable, clinical information derived from real-world data about risks, benefits, and burdens of therapies.

This framework will apply to various pragmatic clinical trials embedded in health care systems and conducted as part of routine care (and will not apply to more traditional clinical trials conducted parallel to care).

Three main considerations are included in the framework:

  1. Will the real-world data be fit for use (do they reliably and adequately represent the concept)?
  2. Will the evidence generated by the trial provide adequate evidence to help answer regulatory questions?
  3. Will the conduct of the study meet FDA regulatory requirements?

January 4, 2019: TRANSFORMing Research for Patients With Heart Failure (Robert Mentz, MD, Kevin Anstrom, PhD, Eric Eisenstein, DBA, Stephen Greene, MD, Eric Velazquez, MD)

Speakers

Robert J. Mentz, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine

Kevin J. Anstrom, PhD
Professor of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics
Director of Biostatistics, Duke Clinical Research Institute
Duke University School of Medicine

Eric Eisenstein, DBA
Associate Professor in Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine

Stephen J. Greene, MD
Fellow, Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute
Duke University School of Medicine

Eric J. Velazquez. MD, FACP, FACC, FASE, FAHA
Robert W. Berliner Professor of Medicine, Yale University
Chief, Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital
Physician-in-Chief, Heart and Vascular Center, Yale New Haven Health

Topic

TRANSFORMing Research for Patients With Heart Failure

Keywords

Pragmatic clinical trial; Heart failure; PRECIS-2; Hospitalization; TRANSFORM-HF; Clinical equipoise; Electronic health records; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)

Key Points

  • The traditional approach to conducting clinical trials is unsustainable in many respects, including operational complexities, low enrollment rates, high costs, and failure to leverage existing resources. Incorporating pragmatic elements in the design of trials may improve efficiencies and conduct.
  • TRANSFORM-HF is a pragmatic trial evaluating torsemide versus furosemide treatment for long-term clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Study randomization is 1:1, and the primary endpoint is all-cause mortality.
  • Advantages of trials with pragmatic designs include real-world effectiveness; broad patient/provider groups; reduced number and complexity of visits; streamlined data collection; potential for faster results; and results that will be more generalizable.

Discussion Themes

The clinical question involving starting a treatment (Should we start with furosemide or torsemide?) versus switching a treatment (Should we attempt to switch patients from furosemide to torsemide?) would seem to lead to different study designs.

While the peer review process for funding TRANSFORM-HF was challenging and required modifying the approach, it ultimately led to a better design.

Read more about PRECIS-2 domains along the explanatory-pragmatic continuum of a clinical trial in the Living Textbook.

Tags

#HeartFailure, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1, @robmentz, @SJGreene_md, @YaleCardiology, @ericjvelazquez

September 7, 2018: Spotlight on a New Demonstration Project: HiLo

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but an insufficient organ supply renders dialysis the only viable treatment option for most patients. Though clinical outcomes among patients receiving dialysis have improved modestly in recent years, annual rates of hospitalization and mortality remain unacceptably high, and quality of life is poor. Poor outcomes are driven primarily by increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but interventions that improve outcomes in the general population by targeting traditional CVD risk factors have mostly failed in patients with ESRD. Current clinical practice guidelines advocate aggressive treatment of high serum phosphate to near-normal levels using dietary phosphate binders and restrictive diets. The benefits of this approach, however, are unproven, the optimal serum phosphate target remains unknown, and potential harms of aggressive treatment have not been definitively identified.

The Pragmatic Trial of Higher vs. Lower Serum Phosphate Targets in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis (HiLo) plans to address these clinically important questions in a large, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial that will evaluate the effects of liberalizing the serum phosphate target (“Hi”) versus maintaining aggressive phosphate control (“Lo”) for patients receiving treatment with maintenance hemodialysis.

 “The question at hand is something we grapple with on a daily basis in every dialysis facility across the country. Either answer will be important new information that will help us do a better job taking care of patients and hopefully improve their quality of life.”

HiLo is led by Myles Wolf, MD, of Duke University with support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Read more about HiLo.