Grand Rounds October 11, 2024: Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma and COPD (Shawn Aaron, MD)

Speaker

Shawn Aaron, MD
Professor
University of Ottawa

Keywords

Respiratory Symptoms; Guideline-Directed Care; Standard Care; Phone Recruitment; Randomized Controlled Trial

Key Points

  • Up to 70% of individuals with asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) remain undiagnosed. The 2007 – 2012 U.S. National Health and Nutritional Examination survey of randomly selected American adults found obstructive lung disease in 13% of the sample, 71% of whom had never been diagnosed.
  • Inspired by an encounter with a patient who had undiagnosed asthma, Dr. Aaron and his team developed three research questions for the Undiagnosed COPD and Asthma in the Population, or UCAP, study: 1) Can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? 2) Are they sick? 3) Can we treat them early to improve health outcomes?
  • They used a case-finding approach to identify symptomatic individuals with undiagnosed cases of either disease. Case-finding evaluates subgroups of people at increased risk of a disease; in this case, they looked at adults with undiagnosed respiratory symptoms.
  • To identify that sample, the team called over 1.1 million Canadian residents. After initial screening of the 50,000 contacts who indicated that there was someone in the household with respiratory symptoms, 2,857 of 4,272 eligible participants underwent testing with spirometry. A fifth of the sample had undiagnosed asthma or COPD.
  • Compared to a healthy age- and sex-matched control group, the adults with undiagnosed COPD or asthma had lower quality of life, worse symptoms and health status, and significant work impairment.
  • To determine whether early diagnosis of previously undiagnosed symptomatic asthma or COPD, and subsequent treatment, improves health outcomes, the team randomly assigned the participants diagnosed with asthma or COPD to the intervention or to usual care.
  • All participants and participants’ primary care providers (PCPs) were given a copy of their interpreted spirometry report with their diagnosis. The intervention group received treatment from a pulmonologist and an asthma/COPD educator; the control group received usual care from their PCP.
  • Guideline-directed treatment of undiagnosed COPD or asthma by a pulmonologist and an educator was found to improve healthcare utilization, symptoms, quality of life and lung function more than usual care.
  • In practice, not all patients can or will be treated by a lung specialist. The trial results indicated that the health of people with asthma or COPD will still improve if they are diagnosed and receive the usual care.

Discussion Themes

Cold-calling, though ultimately effective, was an expensive and inefficient screening and recruitment method. In the future, the team will attempt to drive people with respiratory symptoms to the study website by advertising in the community and on social media.

The research team considered a few iterations of the control arm, including a design in which the control group was informed of their diagnosis later on in the trial. They decided to compare guideline-directed treatment to usual care after reviewing the ethical considerations and the potential for inappropriate randomization.

Case-finding in a sample of people living in asthma or COPD “hotspots,” or in other high-risk populations, could increase the efficiency of the method but narrow the applicability of the findings.

Volunteer bias likely impacted the diversity of the sample; a disproportionate number of the volunteers were white (97%) and older, with an average age of 63.

April 18, 2024: New Living Textbook Chapter Articulates How Investigators Navigated Unexpected Challenges During Pragmatic Clinical Trials

During the course of the years-long pragmatic clinical trials supported by the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, many unanticipated challenges have occurred, some of which have had profound effects on usual care, trial implementation, data systems, and staff. These unanticipated changes threatened the ability of the trials to address the questions they were designed to answer. A new chapter of the Living Textbook—Navigating the Unknown—describes these challenges and the responses of the study teams.

The chapter describes 3 general categories of challenges, each meriting a different response:

  1. If the challenge is a local or temporary issue (for example, a pandemic temporarily shuts down in-person care, or a partnering health system dissolves or is purchased), but the question is still relevant or important and the trial is still feasible, then a workaround may solve the problem.
  2. If the trial is no longer feasible for some reason (for example, the recruitment process is not feasible, or the intervention cannot be delivered as planned), and the question is still relevant, it is necessary to make significant changes to the protocol.
  3. If the question is no longer relevant or important (for example, new evidence or policy changes make the question no longer relevant), the trial should not continue. For this challenge, it may necessary either to stop the trial or to make fundamental changes to address a different question (since the original question is no longer relevant).

The chapter describes local or temporary challenges some of the study teams faced, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, health system mergers, and changes to the electronic health record (EHR). In these cases, the research questions were still relevant and important and the trial designs were still feasible, so workarounds were created to solve the problems.

  • Section 2: Study teams responded to staff turnover, leadership changes, and health system acquisitions and mergers.
  • Section 3: Rapid technology change created unexpected consequences, such as EHR updates causing system changes that affected intervention delivery, and sites switching EHRs systems creating complexities during the trial.
  • Section 4: COVID-19 had significant impacts on trial activities.

Section 5 of the new chapter addresses barriers that resulted from aspects of the protocol that could have impacted recruitment, retention, or implementation in a way that imperiled the ability of trials to answer the question posed by a research study. In these scenarios, researchers found it appropriate to change the protocol or research question—to pivot—in order to glean meaningful, actionable evidence.

Sections 6 and 7 describe challenges that can fall into either category 1 or 2, and investigators had to decide how to respond in real time.

  • Section 6: Clinical practice guidelines and policies changed due to new evidence from observational studies, small trials, and shifting expert opinion, and therefore, usual care changed.
  • Section 7: Quality improvement initiatives were launched to address similar problems, threatening the ability to discern differences between arms of the trial.

The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems to test interventions that address urgent public health problems faced by delivery systems. They involve hundreds to thousands of participants and generally include usual care as a control arm. One of the most important lessons learned through the course of these trials is that unexpected change is a given.

For more, see the section on Unanticipated Changes in the Analysis Plan chapter of the Living Textbook.

June 7, 2023: This Week’s PCT Grand Rounds Will Feature the DUPLICATE Initiative

Headshot of Dr. Shirley Wang
Dr. Shirley Wang

In this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Shirley Wang of Harvard Medical School will present “Emulating Randomized Clinical Trials With Non-randomized Real-World Evidence Studies: Results From the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative.” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, June 9, 2023, at 1:00 pm eastern.

The DUPLICATE initiative is building an empirical evidence base for using longitudinal insurance claims prospectively to achieve large-scale replication of randomized controlled trials. Dr. Wang, a codirector of the initiative,  is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Join the online meeting.

May 31, 2023: PROACT Xa Pragmatic Trial to Be Featured in This Week’s PCT Grand Rounds

Headshot of Dr. John Alexander
Dr. John Alexander

In this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, John Alexander of Duke University will present “PROACT Xa and the Wizard of Oz: Behind the Curtain of a Pragmatic Decentralized Clinical Trial.” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, June 2, 2023, at 1:00 pm eastern.

PROACT Xa was a prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted to determine whether apixaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing valve thrombosis or valve-related thromboembolism in patients with an On-X mechanical aortic valve. The trial’s pragmatic design features enabled the investigators to conduct the the trial successfully during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Dr. Alexander is a cardiologist and professor of medicine in the Duke University School of Medicine and a faculty member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute.

Join the online meeting.

March 29, 2023: This Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds Features Novel Approach to Lowering Blood Pressure in QUARTET USA Trial

Headshot of Dr. Jody CiolinoIn this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Jody Cioliono will present “Efficacy and Safety of a Quadruple Ultra-Low-Dose Treatment for Hypertension (QUARTET USA): Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, March 31, 2023, at 1:00 pm eastern.

The QUARTET USA trial tested a novel approach to lowering blood pressure compared with standard-dose monotherapy. The trial was embedded within a network of federally qualified healthcare centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. Ciolino is an associate professor of preventive medicine (biostatistics) and director of the master of science in biostatistics program in the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Join the online meeting.

October 5, 2022: PCT Grand Rounds to Feature Randomized Trial of Intraoperative Anesthesia Handovers

Headshot of Dr. Melanie Meersch-DiniIn this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Dr. Melanie Meersch-Dini of University Hospital Münster (Germany) will present “Impact of Handovers of Anesthesia Care on Morbidity and Mortality.” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, October 7, 2022, at 1:00 pm eastern.

Dr. Meersch-Dini will discuss the results of the HandiCAP trial (Impact of Handover of Anesthesia Care on Adverse Postoperative Outcomes), a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of intraoperative handover of anesthesia care in 12 centers in Germany.

Join the online meeting.

April 15, 2022: SODIUM-HF: Should Our Patients Consume Less Dietary Sodium? (Justin A. Ezekowitz, MBBCh, MSc)

Speaker

Justin A. Ezekowitz, MBBCh, MSc
Professor of Medicine and Alberta Health Services Chair in Cardiac Sciences
Director, Cardiovascular Research
Co-Director, Canadian VIGOUR Centre
University of Alberta

Cardiologist, Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute

 

 

Keywords

PCORnet; COVID-19; Electronic health record (EHR); Surveillance data

 

Key Points

  • Prior randomized controlled studies on dietary intake of sodium have shown no consistent or conclusive results.
  • SODIUM-HF is a pragmatic randomized trial of 806 patients in 6 countries with heart failure randomized to usual care or a low-sodium diet (≤1500 mg/day NA) and followed for 12 months. The primary outcome measures were mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits.
  • Patients started out around 2200 mg of dietary sodium per day. The usual care group showed little reduction while the SODIUM intervention group saw a 28% reduction to around 1658 mg per day.
  • The intervention group did not have a statistically significant positive outcome for the primary endpoints of mortality, hospitalizations, or ED visits.
  • Patients reported a modestly higher quality of life after 6 and 12 months on the lower sodium diet as reported on the KCCQ quality of life questionnaire.
  • As part of an overall health strategy, clinicians may want to encourage a low sodium diet for patients with HF as a therapy to improve a patient’s quality of life.

Discussion Themes

– The top 3 challenges to the SODIUM-HF study were finding patients willing to change their diet, maintaining fidelity to the study intervention across multiple sites, and the impact of COVID on recruitment.

– No study sites were in the US due to cost restrictions.

– Efficacy trials are still very important and we need to get better at funding them and running them for longer periods.

Read more about the SODIUM-HF trial and results from the study.

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1

April 13, 2022: SODIUM-HF Trial Will Be Featured in This Week’s PCT Grand Rounds

Head shot of Dr. Justin EzekowitzIn this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Dr. Justin Ezekowitz of University of Alberta will present “SODIUM-HF: Should Our Patients Consume Less Dietary Sodium?” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, April 15, at 1:00 pm eastern.

The SODIUM-HF trial is open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted at 26 sites in Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand to test whether reduction in dietary sodium reduces the incidence of future clinical events.

Join the online meeting.

February 4, 2022: SPIRRIT-HFpEF: Opportunities and Challenges in a Large Registry-Based Randomized Clinical Trial(Adam DeVore, MD, MHS; Lars Lund, MD, PhD)

Speakers

Adam DeVore, MD, MHS
Associate Professor of Medicine
Duke University Medical Center
Duke Clinical Research Institute

Lars Lund, MD, PhD
Professor of Cardiology
Karolinska Institutet
Karolinska University Hospital

Topic

SPIRRIT-HFpEF: Opportunities and Challenges in a Large Registry-based Randomized Clinical Trial

Keywords

Heart Failure; SPIRRIT-HFpEF; Randomized clinical trial; Spironolactone; Eplerenone; Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF)

Key Points

  • The SPIRRIT-HFpEF trial, conducted Sweden and the US, was a randomized pragmatic clinical trial of spironolactone or eplerenone in heart failure.
  • Death from heart disease is decreasing while death from Heart Failure is increasing.
  • The SPIRRIT-HFpEF trial focused on improving the trajectory for the growing heart failure population.
  • Patients treated with Spironolactone had a modest but not statistically significant improvement over placebo, but total hospitalizations were less.
  • Patients with a lower ejection fraction were more likely to benefit than patients with a higher ejection fraction.
  • The Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) has been collecting data from HF patients since 2000.’

Discussion Themes

The hardest aspect of a clinical trial is recruitment and enrollment. Patients are spread out over the health care system. The challenge is getting staff and personnel to do the work of screening and prescreening.

In the SPIRRIT-HFpEF, the drawbacks of not blinding were small and the costs of blinding would have been huge.

 

Learn more about the SPIRRIT-HFpEF trial and the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.  Read about the SPIRRIT-HFpEF trial results.

 

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1

February 2, 2022: This Friday in PCT Grand Rounds, the SPIRRIT-HFpEF Registry-Based Randomized Clinical Trial

Headshots of Dr. Adam DeVore and Dr. Lars Lund
Dr. Adam DeVore and Dr. Lars Lund

In this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Dr. Adam DeVore of Duke University and Dr. Lars Lund of the Karolinska Institutet will present “SPIRRIT-HFpEF: Opportunities and Challenges in a Large Registry-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.” The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, February 4, at 1:00 pm eastern.

SPIRRIT-HFpEF is using a registry-based randomized clinical trial design to determine whether initiation of spironolactone plus usual care improves outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with usual care alone.

Join the online meeting.