Search

Background: Randomized controlled trials with pragmatic intent aim to generate evidence that directly informs clinical decisions. Some have argued that the ethical protection of informed consent can be in tension with the goals of pragmatism. But the impact of other ethical protections on trial pragmatism has yet to be explored., Purpose: In this article, we analyze the relationship between additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants and the degree of pragmatism within the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) domains of trial design., Methods: We analyze three example trials with pragmatic intent that include vulnerable participants., Conclusion: The relationship between ethical protections and trial pragmatism is complex. In some cases, additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants can promote the pragmatism of some of the PRECIS-2 domains of trial design. When designing trials with pragmatic intent, researchers ought to look for opportunities wherein ethical protections enhance the degree of pragmatism., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: C.W. receives consulting income from Cardialen, Eli Lilly & Company. H.P.N. is a co-author of the published PRiVII Trial protocol and is a member of the research team coordinating the trial. M.T. has no conflicts of interest to declare.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The conceptual framework of pragmatism in clinical trials is explored using the American Society of Clinical Oncology's pragmatic, non-randomized, phase II, multi-center basket clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study (NCT02693535) as a model. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study aims to identify signals of drug activity when Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are matched to pre-specified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer outside of their approved indication(s). The objectives of the study are to generate evidence of potential signals of activity in targeted therapies prescribed in an off-label setting as well as to expose and educate community cancer centers to genomic testing and precision medicine through the study protocol. The principles of pragmatic trial design can be applied across a broad spectrum of evidence-generation strategies, from explanatory trials to real-world evidence studies, and are briefly discussed. American Society of Clinical Oncology's Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study falls closer to the pragmatic end of this spectrum as it seeks to assess the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration approved drugs used outside their approved indications under usual care conditions, yielding results generalizable to the population that would likely receive the intervention in practice, while still adhering to rigorous data quality standards. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study's pragmatic objectives, characteristics, strengths, and limitations in its implementation are discussed and demonstrate that a large, multi-center, precision medicine basket trial can be mounted in the context of community practice and can generate clinically useful information with minimal burden to patients and clinical trial sites., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: P.K.M., E.G-M., and J.K.P. have nothing to disclose. R.L.S. has received institutional support (ASCO) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, and Seagen for support of the TAPUR Study; R.L.S. has received consulting fees from Cellworks, Scandion Oncology, Bryologyx, Illumina, EQRx, Syapse, and Zephyr AI; R.L.S. has a leadership of fiduciary role for Clarified Precision Medicine and Leap Therapeutics; and R.L.S. has stock or stock options in EQRx, Clarified Precision Medicine and Leap Therapeutics.

Background: There are unique opportunities related to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health insurance plans, which have longitudinal data on member/patient demographics, dates of coverage, and reimbursed medical care, including prescription drug dispensings, vaccine administrations, behavioral healthcare encounters, and some laboratory results. Such trials can be large and efficient, using these data to identify trial-eligible patients and to ascertain outcomes., Methods: We use our experience primarily with the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Distributed Research Network, which comprises health plans that participate in the US Food & Drug Administration's Sentinel System, to describe lessons learned from the conduct and planning of embedded pragmatic trials., Results: Information is available for research on more than 75 million people with commercial or Medicare Advantage health plans. We describe three studies that have used or plan to use the Network, as well as a single health plan study, from which we glean our lessons learned., Conclusions: Studies that are conducted in health plans provide much-needed evidence to drive clinically meaningful changes in care. However, there are many unique aspects of these trials that must be considered in the planning, implementation, and analytic phases. The type of trial best suited for studies embedded in health plans will be those that require large sample sizes, simple interventions that could be disseminated through health plans, and where data available to the health plan can be leveraged. These trials hold potential for substantial long-term impact on our ability to generate evidence to improve care and population health.

Background/aims: The US Department of Veterans Affairs Point of Care Clinical Trial Program conducts studies that utilize informatics infrastructure to integrate clinical trial protocols into routine care delivery. The Diuretic Comparison Project compared hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone in reduction of major cardiovascular events in subjects with hypertension. Here we describe the cultural, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges and solutions that enabled successful implementation of this large pragmatic comparative effectiveness Point of Care clinical trial., Methods: Patients were recruited from 72 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems using centralized processes for subject identification, obtaining informed consent, data collection, safety monitoring, site communication, and endpoint identification with minimal perturbation of the local clinical care ecosystem. Patients continued to be managed exclusively by their clinical care providers without protocol specified study visits, treatment recommendations, or data collection extraneous to routine care. Centralized study processes were operationalized through the application layer of the electronic health record via a data coordinating center staffed by clinical nurses, data scientists, and statisticians without site-based research coordinators. Study data was collected from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record supplemented by Medicare and National Death Index data., Results: The study exceeded its enrolled goal (13,523 subjects) and followed subjects for the 5-year study duration. The key determinant of program success was collaboration between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and administrative staff at the site level to customize study procedures to align with local clinical practice. This flexibility was enabled by designation of the study as minimal risk and determination that clinical care providers were not engaged in research by the Veterans Affairs Central Institutional Review Board. Cultural, regulatory, technical, and logistical problems were identified and solved through iterative collaboration between clinical and research entities. Paramount among these problems was customization of the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and data systems to accommodate study procedures., Conclusions: Leveraging clinical care for large-scale clinical trials is feasible but requires a rethinking of traditional clinical trial design (and regulation) to better meet requirements of clinical care ecosystems. Study designs must accommodate site-specific practice variation to reduce the impact on clinical care. A tradeoff thus exists between designing trial processes tailored to expedite local study implementation versus those to produce a more refined response to the research question. The availability of a uniform and flexible electronic health record in the Department of Veterans Affairs played a major role in the success of the trial. Conducting Point of Care research in other healthcare systems without such research-friendly infrastructure presents a more formidable challenge.

Background: We aimed to understand the effects of aspirin dose on outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as their participation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial., Methods: In a subanalysis of the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, we compared aspirin doses (81 vs 325 mg) among participants with PAD and study participation metrics in patients with and without PAD. The primary outcome composite was all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke., Results: Among 14,662 participants enrolled in ADAPTABLE with PAD status available, 3493 (23.8%) had PAD. Participants with PAD were more likely to experience the primary composite (13.76% vs 5.31%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (7.55% vs 3.01%, p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (5.71% vs 2.09%, p < 0.001), stroke (2.45% vs 0.86%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (1.19% vs 0.44%, p < 0.001). A higher aspirin dose did not reduce the primary outcome in patients with PAD (13.68% vs 13.84% in 81 mg and 325 mg groups; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25). Participants with PAD were less likely to enroll via email (33.0% vs 41.9%, p < 0.0001), less likely to choose internet follow-up (79.2% vs 89.5%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to change their aspirin doses (39.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: ADAPTABLE participants with PAD did not benefit from a higher dose of aspirin and participated in the study differently from those without PAD. These results reinforce the need for additional PAD-specific research and suggest that different trial strategies may be needed for optimal engagement of patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916) .

Background/aims: Actively engaging patient partners in the conduct of trials is crucial to ensure the studies answer genuine, patient-centered, unmet clinical needs, and to facilitate participant recruitment and retention. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of patient engagement within a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, specifically for the purposes of dissemination of study information/updates and to favorize recruitment and retention., Methods: In the patient-centric, pragmatic ADAPTABLE randomized trial, transparent and timely dissemination of information on the study updates to the trial participants was undertaken to create meaningful engagement and to facilitate retention. A national panel of patient partners, the Adaptors, were directly involved in this information dissemination strategy, and study participants were engaged both nationally and locally to design recruitment methods iteratively during the conduct of the trial. All Adaptors had a lived experience with cardiovascular disease., Results: Adaptors attended bi-weekly meetings facilitated by the director of the study's patient-powered research network. They drafted and/or edited newsletters and ad hoc educational information written in a lay-friendly manner for study participants, which were regularly distributed to the ADAPTABLE community, in addition to online forums where participants could share their experience of their involvement in ADAPTABLE. To spur recruitment, a patient-driven initiative was to draft letters sharing their story, which were distributed by the local study teams. Patient partners thought that using patients' voice to provide their perspectives on why they believed this project was important would be more engaging for prospective participants than traditional approaches., Conclusions: ADAPTABLE's experience has demonstrated the feasibility of engaging patients as partners in the conduct of a large-scale, multi-center, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Future trials should embrace and iteratively improve this model by engaging patient partners as early as study protocol development and funding applications, and quantify its impact on the effectiveness and value of the trial.

Background and Aims: We need more pragmatic trials of interventions to improve care and outcomes for people living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. However, these trials present unique methodological challenges in their design, analysis, and reporting-often, due to the presence of one or more sources of clustering. Failure to account for clustering in the design and analysis can lead to increased risks of Type I and Type II errors. We conducted a review to describe key methodological characteristics and obtain a "baseline assessment" of methodological quality of pragmatic trials in dementia research, with a view to developing new methods and practical guidance to support investigators and methodologists conducting pragmatic trials in this field., Methods: We used a published search filter in MEDLINE to identify trials more likely to be pragmatic and identified a subset that focused on people living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias or included them as a defined subgroup. Pairs of reviewers extracted descriptive information and key methodological quality indicators from each trial., Results: We identified N  = 62 eligible primary trial reports published across 36 different journals. There were 15 (24%) individually randomized, 38 (61%) cluster randomized, and 9 (15%) individually randomized group treatment designs; 54 (87%) trials used repeated measures on the same individual and/or cluster over time and 17 (27%) had a multivariate primary outcome (e.g. due to measuring an outcome on both the patient and their caregiver). Of the 38 cluster randomized trials, 16 (42%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for the intracluster correlation and 13 (34%) did not account for intracluster correlation in the analysis. Of the 9 individually randomized group treatment trials, 6 (67%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for intracluster correlation and 8 (89%) did not account for it in the analysis. Of the 54 trials with repeated measurements, 45 (83%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for repeated measurements and 19 (35%) did not utilize at least some of the repeated measures in the analysis. No trials accounted for the multivariate nature of their primary outcomes in sample size calculation; only one did so in the analysis., Conclusion: There is a need and opportunity to improve the design, analysis, and reporting of pragmatic trials in dementia research. Investigators should pay attention to the potential presence of one or more sources of clustering. While methods for longitudinal and cluster randomized trials are well developed, accessible resources and new methods for dealing with multiple sources of clustering are required. Involvement of a statistician with expertise in longitudinal and clustered designs is recommended.

Background/aims: When participants in individually randomized group treatment trials are treated by multiple clinicians or in multiple group treatment sessions throughout the trial, this induces partially nested clusters which can affect the power of a trial. We investigate this issue in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial, a three-arm pragmatic, individually randomized clinical trial. We evaluate whether partial clusters due to multiple visits delivered by different clinicians in the Whole Health Team arm and dynamic participant groups due to changing group leaders and/or participants across treatment sessions during treatment delivery in the Primary Care Group Education arm may impact the power of the trial. We also present a Bayesian approach to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficients., Methods: We present statistical models for each treatment arm of Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial in which power is estimated under different intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices between participants and clinicians or treatment sessions. Power calculations are based on pairwise comparisons. In practice, sample size calculations depend on estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients at the treatment sessions and clinician levels. To accommodate such complexities, we present a Bayesian framework for the estimation of intraclass correlation coefficients under different participant-to-session and participant-to-clinician mapping scenarios. We simulated continuous outcome data based on various clinical scenarios in Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial using a range of intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices and used Gibbs samplers with conjugate priors to obtain posteriors of the intraclass correlation coefficients under those different scenarios. Posterior means and medians and their biases are calculated for the intraclass correlation coefficients to evaluate the operating characteristics of the Bayesian intraclass correlation coefficient estimators., Results: Power for Whole Health Team versus Primary Care Group Education is sensitive to the intraclass correlation coefficient in the Whole Health Team arm. In these two arms, an increased number of clinicians, more evenly distributed workload of clinicians, or more homogeneous treatment group sizes leads to increased power. Our simulation study for the intraclass correlation coefficient estimation indicates that the posterior mean intraclass correlation coefficient estimator has less bias when the true intraclass correlation coefficients are large (i.e. 0.10), but when the intraclass correlation coefficient is small (i.e. 0.01), the posterior median intraclass correlation coefficient estimator is less biased., Conclusion: Knowledge of intraclass correlation coefficients and the structure of clustering are critical to the design of individually randomized group treatment trials with partially nested clusters. We demonstrate that the intraclass correlation coefficient of the Whole Health Team arm can affect power in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial. A Bayesian approach provides a flexible procedure for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficients under complex scenarios. More work is needed to educate the research community about the individually randomized group treatment design and encourage publication of intraclass correlation coefficients to help inform future trial designs.

Favourable regulatory assessments, liberal policy changes, new research centres and substantial commercial investment signal that psychedelic therapy is making a major comeback. Positive findings from modern trials are catalysing developments, but it is questionable whether current confirmatory trials are sufficient for advancing our understanding of safety and best practice. Here we suggest supplementing traditional confirmatory trials with pragmatic trials, real-world data initiatives and digital health solutions to better support the discovery of optimal and personalised treatment protocols and parameters. These recommendations are intended to help support the development of safe, effective and cost-efficient psychedelic therapy, which, given its history, is vulnerable to excesses of hype and regulation.

Background/aims: Current research largely tends to ignore the drug-testing model that was developed in the "Second World" as an explicit alternative to the randomized controlled trial. This system can be described as "socialist pharmapolitics," accounting for the specific features of state socialism that influenced the development and testing of experimental drugs. The clinical trials model employed in the "Second World" was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union, which was by far the most influential player in the socialist bloc during the Cold War. Based on extensive archival research, this article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It accounts for the divergences between the official model prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the messy realities of healthcare practice. It further outlines different factors that ultimately shaped how clinical trials were organized in Soviet institutions "on the ground." Accordingly, this article presents a "real-life" history of "socialist pharmapolitics" and outlines the problems that this system faced in practice., Methods: Archival research was conducted at the Russian State Archive of Scientific and Technical Documentation in Moscow. Archival files include scientific, technical, and registration documentation such as biochemical, pharmacological, and clinical descriptions of the experimental drug Meldonium, letters between various hospitals, research institutes and the Soviet regulatory body, as well as 26 reports of completed clinical trials. Manual content analysis was used for the interpretation of results., Results: This article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It demonstrates some key differences from the randomized controlled trial model. This article also highlights some of the discrepancies between the model that was officially prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the realities of experimental drug testing in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, it notes some elements of randomization, double-blinding, and the use of placebo that were present in Meldonium trials despite being formally denounced by Soviet bioethics., Conclusion: The Soviet model for testing experimental drugs differed from the Western one substantially in a number of respects. This difference was not only proclaimed officially by the Soviet authorities, but was for the most part enforced in clinical trials in practice. At the same time, our research demonstrates that there were important differences between the official model and the clinical realities on the ground.

There has been a good deal of discussion in the literature regarding which subjects are vulnerable in the context of clinical trials. There has been significantly less discussion regarding when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials. This lack of guidance is a particular problem for trials covered by the US regulations, which mandate strict requirements on the inclusion of three groups: pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children. For the past 30 years, funders, investigators, and institutional review boards have frequently responded to these regulations by excluding pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children from clinical trials. More recent work has emphasized the extent to which a default of exclusion can undermine the value of clinical trials, especially pragmatic trials. A default of exclusion also has the potential to undermine the interests of vulnerable groups, in both the short and the long term. These concerns raise the need for guidance on how to satisfy existing US regulations, while minimizing their negative impact on the value of clinical trials and the interests of vulnerable groups. The present manuscript thus describes a six-step decision procedure that institutional review boards can use to determine when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials, including pragmatic trials, that are covered by US regulations.

Clinical trials embedded in health systems can randomize large populations using automated data sources to determine trial eligibility and assess outcomes. The suicide prevention outreach trial used real-world data for trial design and randomized 18,868 individuals in four health systems using patient-reported thoughts of death or self-harm (Patient Health Questionnaire item 9). This took 3.5 years. We consider if using predictive analytics, that is, suicide risk estimates based on prediction models, could improve trial "efficiency." We used data on mental health outpatient visits between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2017 in seven health systems (HealthPartners; Henry Ford Health System; and Colorado, Hawaii, Northwest, Southern California, and Washington Kaiser Permanente regions). We used a suicide risk prediction model developed in these same systems. We compared five trial designs with different eligibility criteria: a response of a 2 or 3 on Patient Health Questionnaire item 9, a response of a 3, suicide risk score above 90th, 95th, or 99th percentile. We compared the sample that met each criterion, 90-day suicide attempt rate following first eligible visit, and necessary sample sizes to detect a 15%, 25%, and 35% relative reduction in the suicide attempt rate, assuming 90% power, for each eligibility criterion. Our sample included 24,355,599 outpatient visits. Despite wide-spread use of Patient Health Questionnaire, 21,026,985 (86.3%) visits did not have a recorded Patient Health Questionnaire. Of the 2,928,927 individuals in our sample, 109,861 had a recorded Patient Health Questionnaire item 9 response of a 2 or 3 over the study years with a 1.40% 90-day suicide attempt rate and 50,047 had a response of a 3 (suicide attempt rate 1.98%). More patients met criteria requiring a certain risk score or higher: 331,273 had a 90th percentile risk score or higher (suicide attempt rate: 1.36%); 182,316 a 95th percentile or higher (suicide attempt rate 2.16%), and 78,655 a 99th percentile or higher (suicide attempt rate: 3.95%). Eligibility criterion of a Patient Health Questionnaire item 9 response of a 2 or 3 would require randomizing 44,081 individuals (40.2% of eligible population in our sample); eligibility criterion of a 3 would require 31,024 individuals (62.0% of eligible population). Eligibility criterion of a suicide risk score of 90th percentile or higher would require 45,675 individuals (13.8% of eligible population), 95th percentile 28,699 individuals (15.7% of eligible population), and 99th percentile 15,509 (19.7% of eligible population). A suicide risk prediction calculator could improve trial "efficiency"; identifying more individuals at increased suicide risk than relying on patient-report. It is an open scientific question if individuals identified using predictive analytics would respond differently to interventions than those identified by more traditional means.

Background: Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent., Methods: A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings., Results: Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%-77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%-68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk., Conclusion: Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Background: There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction., Methods: This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference., Results: The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study., Conclusion: Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a "committee member" suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study.

Informed consent for randomized trials often causes significant and persistent anxiety, distress and confusion to patients. Where an experimental treatment is compared to a standard care control, much of this burden is potentially avoidable in the control group. We propose a "just-in-time" consent in which consent discussions take place in two stages: an initial consent to research from all participants and a later specific consent to randomized treatment only from those assigned to the experimental intervention. All patients are first approached and informed about research procedures, such as questionnaires or tests. They are also informed that they might be randomly selected to receive an experimental treatment and that, if selected, they can learn more about the treatment and decide whether or not to accept it at that time. After randomization, control patients undergo standard clinical consent whereas patients randomized to the experimental procedure undergo a second consent discussion. Analysis would be by intent-to-treat, which protects the trial from selection bias, although not from poor acceptance of experimental treatment. The advantages of just-in-time consent stem from the fact that only patients randomized to the experimental treatment are subject to a discussion of that intervention. We hypothesize that this will reduce much of the patient's burden associated with the consent process, such as decisional anxiety, confusion and information overload. We recommend well-controlled studies to compare just-in-time and traditional consent, with endpoints to include characteristics of participants, distress and anxiety and participants' understanding of research procedures.

Background/aims: Central institutional review board (IRB) review will be required for National Institutes of Health-funded multisite human subjects research as of January 2018, with similar requirements extending to most US multisite human research in 2020. Nonetheless, little is known regarding the relative efficiency of central versus local IRB review for multicenter studies. We compared the amount of time required for central versus local IRB review and approval for sites in one ongoing multicenter randomized trial., Methods: The REGAIN Trial (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture; clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02507505) is an ongoing randomized trial comparing standard-care spinal anesthesia to standard-care general anesthesia for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. After approval of the protocol by the sponsor IRB, each participating US site opted either to submit the protocol for local IRB review or to designate the sponsor IRB as the IRB of record (i.e. central IRB) via an authorization agreement after a limited local review. For each US REGAIN site approved through 18 April 2017, we assessed (1) the time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB submission, (2) the time in calendar days from IRB submission to IRB approval, and (3) the total time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB approval (i.e. time from protocol receipt to IRB submission plus time from IRB submission to IRB approval)., Results: The main study protocol was submitted to the sponsor IRB on 25 May 2015 and approved on 8 July 2015 (44 days). Out of 34 sites, 9 received initial approval from the central (sponsor) IRB; 25 sought initial approval via local review. The median time from protocol receipt to IRB submission was 39 days for sites approved by the central IRB (interquartile range: 35-134) versus 58 days for sites approved via local review (interquartile range: 41-105; p = 0.711). The median time from IRB submission to IRB approval for sites approved by the central IRB was 27 days (interquartile range: 14-32) versus 66 days (interquartile range: 29-138) for sites approved via local review (p = 0.026). The median total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval was 100 days (interquartile range: 71-148) for centrally approved sites versus 132 days (interquartile range: 87-209) for locally approved sites (p = 0.191)., Conclusion: While central IRB review was associated with a shorter time from IRB submission to IRB approval compared to local IRB review, the total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval varied markedly across sites.

Background: To reduce research costs in the context of pragmatic trials, consideration is given to using administrative data (Medicare claims) to ascertain clinical outcomes., Methods: In the historical context of the Women's Health Initiative, the correspondence between selected cardiovascular events derived from Medicare claims was compared to those documented and adjudicated in this large-scale prevention trial., Results: Classification performance varies somewhat by type of outcome, but hazard ratios and confidence intervals derived from the two data sources were quite comparable., Conclusion: These encouraging results provided the needed support to launch a new embedded pragmatic trial of physical activity that will rely heavily on Medicare claims to ascertain cardiovascular disease incidence in the majority of those randomized., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background/aims: In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices., Methods: We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts., Results: A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias., Conclusion: Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: Pragmatic trials comparing "standard of care" treatments provide comparative effectiveness data to make practice of medicine more evidence-based. With electronic health records, recruiting and conducting such trials can be relatively inexpensive. But some worry that the traditional research ethics framework poses unnecessary obstacles and is not appropriate for evaluating such clinical trials. This concern is based on the view (which we call the "Standard of Care Principle") that such research is similar to usual clinical practice and therefore does not raise significant ethical issues since everyone in the research study will receive an accepted standard of care treatment., Methods: A case study of a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (Blood Pressure Medication Timing study) comparing morning versus nighttime dosing of antihypertensive medications. The Blood Pressure Medication Timing study has been proposed as a paradigm example of why the Standard of Care Principle obviates the need for traditional levels of ethical scrutiny and how the current regulatory framework poses unnecessary obstacles to research. We provide an ethical analysis of the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study, drawing on the empirical literature as well as on normative analysis., Results: The Standard of Care Principle is the main ethical rationale given by commentators for asserting that the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study does not require "significant ethical debate" and by investigators for the assertion that the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study is minimal risk and thus eligible for lessened regulatory requirements. However, the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study raises important ethical issues, including whether it is even necessary, given the considerable randomized clinical trial evidence in support of nighttime dosing, a much larger (N≈17,000) confirmatory randomized clinical trial already in progress, evidence for safety of nighttime dosing, and the cost-free availability of the intervention. Furthermore, the Standard of Care Principle provides a misleading basis for analyzing the informed consent requirements, especially regarding the requirement to disclose alternative courses of treatment that "might be advantageous to the subject.", Conclusion: The Standard of Care Principle is ethically inadequate and misleading even when it is applied to the pragmatic randomized clinical trial proposed as a paradigm case for its application., (© The Author(s) 2015.)