Search

Aim: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all‐cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half‐life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. Methods and results: The TRANSFORM‐HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long‐term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post‐hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30–<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ‐CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30–<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all‐cause mortality and all‐cause (re)‐hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p‐value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ‐CSS (p‐value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. Conclusion: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified. Methods We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool. Results The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the ‘pragmatic’ label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57–3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature. Conclusion PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

There is a growing interest in real world evidence when developing antineoplastic drugs owing to the shorter length of time and low costs compared to randomised controlled trials. External validity of studies in the regulatory phase can be enhanced by complementing randomised controlled trials with real world evidence. Furthermore, the use of real world evidence ensures the inclusion of patients often excluded from randomised controlled trials such as the elderly, certain ethnicities or those from certain geographical areas. This review explores approaches in which real world data may be integrated with randomised controlled trials. One approach is by using big data, especially when investigating drugs in the antineoplastic setting. This can even inform artificial intelligence thus ensuring faster and more precise diagnosis and treatment decisions. Pragmatic trials also offer an approach to examine the effectiveness of novel antineoplastic drugs without evading the benefits of randomised controlled trials. A well-designed pragmatic trial would yield results with high external validity by employing a simple study design with a large sample size and diverse settings. Although randomised controlled trials can determine efficacy of antineoplastic drugs, effectiveness in the real world may differ. The need for pragmatic trials to help guide healthcare decision-making led to the development of trials within cohorts (TWICs). TWICs make use of cohorts to conduct multiple randomised controlled trials while maintaining characteristics of real world data in routine clinical practice. Although real world data is often affected by incomplete data and biases such as selection and unmeasured biases, the use of big data and pragmatic approaches can improve the use of real world data in the development of antineoplastic drugs that can in turn steer decision-making in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified. Methods: We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool. Results: The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57–3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature. Conclusion: PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of palatal brushing in the treatment of denture-related erythematous stomatitis (DES) in complete denture wearers. Methods: This two-parallel-arm RCT was conducted in three university clinics in Brazil, Canada, and Chile. Participants (n=77) were randomly allocated to receive (i) instructions for palatal brushing and standard oral/denture hygiene (“intervention”); or (ii) standard oral/denture hygiene instructions only (“control”). Data collection was carried out at the baseline and at 3 and 6 months after intervention. Outcomes included the magnitude of oral Candida carriage and the degree of inflammation of denture-bearing tissues. Groups were compared using generalized estimating equations and chi-square test (α=0.05). Results: Palatal inflammation levels were reduced significantly in the “intervention” compared to “control” group at 6 months (intervention: 70%, control: 40%; chi-square, p=0.04). There was no between-group significant difference in the Candida count from denture and palatal biofilms; however, a subgroup analysis restricted to baseline Candida carriers showed further reduction with the intervention at 6 months. No adversity was observed by trialist or reported by participants. Conclusions: Including palatal brushing in oral instructions for denture wearers has positive impact on DES-related mucosal inflammation. Thus, our findings endorse the inclusion of palatal brushing in standard oral hygiene instructions to treat DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction enjoys a burgeoning philosophical and medical literature and a significant contingent of support among philosophers and healthcare stakeholders as an important way to assess the design and results of randomized controlled trials. A major motivation has been the need to provide relevant, generalizable data to drive healthcare decisions. While talk of pragmatic and explanatory trials could be seen as convenient shorthand, the distinction can also be seen as harboring deeper issues related to inferential strategies used to evaluate causal claims regarding medical treatments. A comprehensive, critical analysis of the distinction and underlying epistemological framework upon which the distinction is based, particularly with respect to treatment effectiveness, has yet to be forthcoming. I provide this, analyzing the distinction’s relationship to generalizability and cognate distinctions between ideal conditions and real-world practice, internal and external validity, and efficacy and effectiveness. I also analyze recent philosophical work that relies on the explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction and that advocates for more pragmatic trials. I conclude that as an organizing principle for trial-design decisions and trial evaluation, the explanatory/pragmatic-trial distinction is conceptually problematic and not as useful as its proponents seem to think. Since some pragmatic-trial features can be inimical to establishing treatment effectiveness, pragmatic-trial features should not be conflated with pragmatic trials’ avowed goals. If the distinction is to be useful, it and some associated concepts, including generalizability, should be reformulated, lest they continue to underlie a medical epistemology that could contribute to methodologically flawed and potentially unethical advice for the design and interpretation of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM) study is a pragmatic trial designed to manage unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) patients within a care research framework. CAM is an all-inclusive study. Management options are allocated according to an algorithm combining pre-randomization and clinical judgment. Eligible patients are offered 1:1 randomized allocation of intervention versus conservative management and 1:1 randomization allocation of surgical versus endovascular treatment. Ineligible patients are registered. The primary outcome is survival without dependency (modified Rankin Scale score <3) at 10 years. All UIA patients at 1 center are reported. Between February 2020 and July 2021, 403 UIA patients were recruited: 179 (44%) in one of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 224 (56%) in one of the registries. Conservative management was recommended for 205 of 403 patients (51%); of 198 (49%) patients considered for curative treatment, 159 (80%) were randomly allocated conservative (n = 81) or curative treatment (n = 78). These patients were younger and had larger aneurysms than those in the observation registry (P = 0.004). In 39 of 198 patients (20%), conservative management was not considered reasonable (17 patients were recommended endovascular, 2 surgery, and 20 the RCT comparing endovascular with surgical treatment). In total, 70 patients were recruited in the RCT comparing surgery and endovascular treatment. After informed discussion at time of consent, 141 of 159 patients (89%) agreed with the randomly allocated management plan, while 11% crossed over to the alternative management option. CAM was successfully integrated into routine practice. Meaningful conclusions can be obtained if multiple centers actively participate in the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges that limit their applicability in real‐world settings. As a consequence, pragmatic trials are increasingly viewed as a research design that overcomes some of these barriers with the potential to produce findings that are more reproducible. Although pragmatic methodology in long‐term care is receiving increasing attention as an approach to improve successful dissemination and implementation, pragmatic trials present complexities of their own. To address these complexities and related issues, experts with experience conducting pragmatic trials, developing nursing home policy, participating in advocacy efforts, and providing clinical care in long‐term care settings participated in a virtual consensus conference funded by the National Institute on Aging in Spring 2021. Participants identified 4 cross‐cutting principles key to dissemination and implementation of pragmatic trial interventions: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) diversity and inclusion, (3) organizational strain and readiness, and (4) learn from adaptations. Participants emphasized that implementation processes must be grounded in the perspectives of the people who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the intervention once it is proven to be effective. In addition, messaging must speak to long‐term care staff and all others who have a stake in its outcomes. Although our understanding of dissemination and implementation strategies remains underdeveloped, this article is designed to guide long‐term care researchers and community providers who are increasingly aware of the need for pragmatism in disseminating and implementing evidence‐based care interventions. See related editorial by Zimmerman et al. and Special Articles by Gurwitz et al. and Resnick et al. in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials. Main text We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied. Conclusions The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) trial tested an enhanced postoperative surveillance intervention to reduce postoperative mortality in Africa. We undertook a concurrent evaluation to understand the process of intervention delivery.Methods: Mixed-methods process evaluation, including field notes, interviews, and post-trial questionnaire responses. Qualitative analysis used the framework method with subsequent creation of comparative case studies, grouping hospitals by intervention fidelity. A post-trial questionnaire was developed using initial qualitative analyses. Categorical variables were summarised as count (%) and continuous variables as median (inter-quartile range [IQR]). Odds ratios (OR) were used to rank influences by impact on fidelity.Results: The dataset included eight in-depth case studies, and 96 questionnaire responses (response rate 67%) plus intervention fidelity data for each trial site. Overall, 57% (n=55/96) of hospitals achieved intervention delivery using an inclusive definition of fidelity. Delivery of the ASOS-2 interventions and data collection presented a significant burden to the investigators, outstripping limited resources. The influences most associated with fidelity were: surgical staff enthusiasm for the trial (OR=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.0); nursing management support of the trial (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.5); performance of a dummy run (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1); nursing colleagues seeing the value of the intervention(s) (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-5.7); and site investigators' belief in the effectiveness of the intervention (OR=3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-9.4).Conclusions: ASOS-2 has proved that coordinated interventional research across Africa is possible, but delivering the ASOS-2 interventions was a major challenge for many investigators. Future improvement science efforts must include better planning for intervention delivery, additional support to investigators, and promotion of strong inter-professional teamwork.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials gov NCT03853824. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess, with all available trial information, whether the assessment of the PRECIS-2 nine domains could provide a clear distinction between medicine masked pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) and open-label pRCTs. Methods: A search was conducted of participant-level pRCTs on medicines published on 25 influential medical journals in July 2018–December 2019. All pre-licensing (phases 1–3) and cluster pRCTs were excluded. All trials' available reports were searched through the published article information, Google Scholar, and trial websites. Instead of providing a score to each PRECIS-2 domain, these were classified as E (explanatory), N (neutral), or P (pragmatic). Results: Of 128 pRCTs, 18 (14%) were participant-level pRCTs on medicines. The full trial protocol was available for 14 trials; 12 had published the protocol and nine had additional reports published. All trials were prospectively registered, and none was funded by industry. Ten and eight were masked and open-label trials, respectively. Masked pRCTS had 34% of pragmatic and 60% of explanatory domains; open-label pRCTS had 45% pragmatic and 45% explanatory domains. Among the 10 masked trials, only one had a majority of five pragmatic domains; among the eight open-label trials, four had a majority of six or five pragmatic domains. "Follow-up" was considered explanatory in the 18 pRCTs; "primary analysis" was pragmatic in 17 pRCTs. Conclusion: The PRECIS-2 tool seems not to be sensitive enough to clearly discriminate between medicine masked pRCTs and open-label pRCTs. When conducting systematic reviews, it is suggested that the PRECIS-2 tool should not be used to support placing masked trials in the pragmatic side of the explanatory/pragmatic continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials.Main Text: We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied.Conclusions: The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study, a multifactorial intervention was associated with a nonsignificant 8% reduction in time to first serious fall injury but a significant 10% reduction in time to first self‐reported fall injury relative to enhanced usual care. The effect of the intervention on other outcomes important to patients has not yet been reported. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on patient well‐being including concern about falling, anxiety, depression, physical function, and disability. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster‐randomized trial of 5,451 community‐living persons at high risk for serious fall injuries. SETTING: A total of 86 primary care practices within 10 U.S. healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: A random subsample of 743 persons aged 75 and older. MEASUREMENTS: The well‐being measures, assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, included a modified version of the Fall Efficacy Scale, Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and depression scales, and Late‐Life Function and Disability Instrument. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention (n = 384) and control groups (n = 359) were comparable in age: mean (standard deviation) of 81.9 (4.7) versus 81.8 (5.0) years. Mean scores were similar between groups at 12 and 24 months for concern about falling, physical function, and disability, whereas the intervention group's mean scores on anxiety and depression were.7 points lower (i.e., better) at 12 months and.6 to.8 points lower at 24 months. For each of these outcomes, differences between the groups' adjusted least square mean changes from baseline to 12 and 24 months, respectively, were quantitatively small. The overall difference in means between groups over 2 years was statistically significant only for depression, favoring the intervention: −1.19 (99% confidence interval, −2.36 to −.02), with 3.5 points representing a minimally important difference. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE's multifactorial intervention to reduce fall injuries was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in patient well‐being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sixteen million caregivers currently provide care to more than 5 million persons living with dementia (PLWD) in the United States. Although this population is growing and highly complex, evidence‐based management remains poorly integrated within healthcare systems. Therefore, the National Institute on Aging IMPACT Collaboratory was formed to build the nation's ability to conduct embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) for PLWD and their caregivers. The pilot core of the IMPACT Collaboratory seeks to provide funds for upward of 40 pilots for ePCTs to accelerate the testing of nonpharmacologic interventions with the goal that these pilots lead to full‐scale ePCTs and eventually the embedding of evidence‐based care into healthcare systems. The first two challenges for the pilot core in building the pilot study program were (1) to develop a transparent, ethical, and open nationwide process for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting pilot studies; and (2) to begin the process of describing the necessary components of a pilot study for an ePCT. During our initial funding cycle, we received 35 letters of intent, of which 17 were accepted for a full proposal and 14 were submitted. From this process we learned that investigators lack knowledge in ePCTs, many interventions lack readiness for an ePCT pilot study, and many proposed studies lack key pragmatic design elements. We therefore have set three key criteria that future pilot studies must meet at a minimum to be considered viable. We additionally discuss key design decisions investigators should consider in designing a pilot study for an ePCT. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S14–S20, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Masking (or blinding) of treatment assignment is routinely implemented in classical randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to isolate the effect of the intervention itself and to minimize the potential for bias that could occur with traditional trials. Such biases could be introduced with the conduct, assessment of endpoints, management of conditions, analysis, and reporting when the treatment assignments are known. However, masking of treatments is not only complex but it hinders how generalizable the findings are to the "real world" clinical setting. Pragmatic RCTs (pRCTs) are intended to evaluate the effects of interventions within routine medical care, and as such, do not typically mask treatment groups; moreover, pRCTs assess comparators that are available in routine medical practice, not masked placebos. Whether pRCTs should be masked if intended for regulatory or other purposes has recently been questioned. The literature on pRCTs, while extensive, does not address how much actual benefit is gained from masking outcomes and how masking may affect the "real world" nature of a study. Here, we propose an approach to evaluate sources of bias, describe stakeholders in the conduct of pRCTs who are most likely affected, and offer a framework for considering how masking may be implemented effectively while maintaining generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized experiments have enormous potential to improve human welfare in many domains, including healthcare, education, finance, and public policy. However, such "A/B tests" are often criticized on ethical grounds even as similar, untested interventions are implemented without objection. We find robust evidence across 16 studies of 5,873 participants from three diverse populations spanning nine domains--from healthcare to autonomous vehicle design to poverty reduction--that people frequently rate A/B tests designed to establish the comparative effectiveness of two policies or treatments as inappropriate even when universally implementing either A or B, untested, is seen as appropriate. This "A/B effect" is as strong among those with higher educational attainment and science literacy and among relevant professionals. It persists even when there is no reason to prefer A to B and even when recipients are treated unequally and randomly in all conditions (A, B, and A/B). Several remaining explanations for the effect-- a belief that consent is required to impose a policy on half of a population but not on the entire population; an aversion to controlled but not to uncontrolled experiments; and a proxy form of the illusion of knowledge (according to which randomized evaluations are unnecessary because experts already do or should know "what works")--appear to contribute to the effect, but none dominates or fully accounts for it. We conclude that rigorously evaluating policies or treatments via pragmatic randomized trials may provoke greater objection than simply implementing those same policies or treatments untested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are presumed to include a less-selected patient population and thus to have enhanced generalizability compared to conventional RCTs. However, this view disregards the levels of patient selection in registry-based RCTs: the registry selection level and the trial selection level. At both levels, systematic selection can occur and generalizability can be diminished. Nevertheless, using a registry as a basis for recruitment, randomization, and data collection results in an advantage: the trial selection takes place within the registry framework, where baseline characteristics of non-enrolled patients are automatically documented as well. By comparing the baseline variables of the enrolled and non-enrolled patients, the trial selection can always be investigated, which gives a sound basis for discussing the generalizability to the registry population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We resolve a controversy over two competing hypotheses about why people object to randomized experiments: 1) People unsurprisingly object to experiments only when they object to a police or treatment the experiment contains, or 2) people can paradoxically object to experiments even when they approve of implementing either condition for everyone. Using multiple measures of preference and test criteria in five preregistered within subjects studies with 1,955 participants, we find that people often disapprove of experiments involving randomization despite approving of the policies or treatments to be tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to highlight features of pragmatic real-world integrative oncology research by applying the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) criteria to an ongoing integrative oncology clinical trial. The ongoing trial is a preference-based randomized comparative effectiveness trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) versus t'ai chi/qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the Mindfulness and T'ai Chi for Cancer Health [MATCH] study). The primary outcome of the MATCH study is distress, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, sleep disturbance, and physical functioning. The clinical trial is being undertaken at tertiary care cancer centers across two sites in Canada: Calgary (AB) and Toronto (ON), with a sample of 600 cancer survivors who have finished all cancer treatments and are distressed. Methods and Results: The MATCH trial was scored on the explanatory–pragmatic continuum for each of the nine domains of the PRECIS-2 criteria on a scale of 1–5, and was rated as more explanatory than pragmatic, despite initial design efforts being more pragmatic. Areas that were least pragmatic were methods of recruitment, follow-up, and intervention delivery. The more pragmatic areas were setting, outcomes, and data analysis. Conclusions: More efforts toward conducting pragmatic trials are needed in the field of integrative oncology, as cancer-care institutions and policy makers are looking for sustainable interventions within already established treatment models. The PRECIS-2 criteria can help researchers meet these goals in the planning stages of trial development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMS/PMDD) bother a substantial number of women. Homeopathy seems a promising treatment, but it needs investigation using reliable study designs. The feasibility of organizing an international randomized pragmatic trial on a homeopathic add-on treatment (usual care [UC] + HT) compared with UC alone was evaluated. Design: A multicenter, randomized, controlled pragmatic trial with parallel groups. Settings/Location: The study was organized in general and private homeopathic practices in the Netherlands and Sweden and in an outpatient university clinic in Germany. Subjects: Women diagnosed as having PMS/PMDD, based on prospective daily rating by the daily record of severity of problems (DRSP) during a period of 2 months, were included and randomized. Interventions: Women were to receive UC + HT or UC for 4 months. Homeopathic medicine selection was according to a previously tested prognostic questionnaire and electronic algorithm. Usual care was as provided by the women's general practitioner according to their preferences. Outcome measures: Before and after treatment, the women completed diaries (DRSP), the measure yourself concerns and well-being, and other questionnaires. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. Results: In Germany, the study could not proceed because of legal limitations. In Sweden, recruitment proved extremely difficult. In the Netherlands and Sweden, 60 women were randomized (UC + HT: 28; UC: 32), data of 47/46 women were analyzed (ITT/PP). After 4 months, relative mean change of DRSP scores in the UC + HT group was significantly better than in the UC group ( p  = 0.03). Conclusions: With respect to recruitment and different legal status, it does not seem feasible to perform a larger, international, pragmatic randomized trial on (semi-)individualized homeopathy for PMS/PMDD. Since the added value of HT compared with UC was demonstrated by significant differences in symptom score changes, further studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The scale-up of antiretroviral treatment (ART) programmes has seen HIV/AIDS transition to a chronic condition characterised by high rates of comorbidity with tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health disorders. Depression is one such disorder that is associated with higher rates of non-adherence, progression to AIDS and greater mortality. Detection and treatment of comorbid depression is critical to achieve viral load suppression in more than 90% of those on ART and is in line with the recent 90-90-90 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) targets. The CobALT trial aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scalable interventions to reduce the treatment gap posed by the growing burden of depression among adults on lifelong ART.Methods: The study design is a pragmatic, parallel group, stratified, cluster randomised trial in 40 clinics across two rural districts of the North West Province of South Africa. The unit of randomisation is the clinic, with outcomes measured among 2000 patients on ART who screen positive for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Control group clinics are implementing the South African Department of Health's Integrated Clinical Services Management model, which aims to reduce fragmentation of care in the context of rising multimorbidity, and which includes training in the Primary Care 101 (PC101) guide covering communicable diseases, NCDs, women's health and mental disorders. In intervention clinics, we supplemented this with training specifically in the mental health components of PC101 and clinical communications skills training to support nurse-led chronic care. We strengthened the referral pathways through the introduction of a clinic-based behavioural health counsellor equipped to provide manualised depression counselling (eight sessions, individual or group), as well as adherence counselling sessions (one session, individual). The co-primary patient outcomes are a reduction in PHQ-9 scores of at least 50% from baseline and viral load suppression rates measured at 6 and 12 months, respectively.Discussion: The trial will provide real-world effectiveness of case detection and collaborative care for depression including facility-based counselling on the mental and physical outcomes for people on lifelong ART in resource-constrained settings.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02407691 ) registered on 19 March 2015; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry ( 201504001078347 ) registered on 19/03/2015; South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR) ( DOH-27-0515-5048 ) NHREC number 4048 issued on 21/04/2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Among the challenges in health research is translating interventions from controlled experimental settings to clinical and community settings where chronic disease is managed daily. Pragmatic trials offer a method for testing interventions in real-world settings but are seldom used in OA research. The aim of this study was to evaluate the literature on pragmatic trials in OA research up to August 2016 in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in the design and reporting of these trials. Methods. We used established guidelines to assess the degree to which 61 OA studies complied with pragmatic trial design and reporting. We assessed design according to the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary and reporting according to the pragmatic trials extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. Results. None of the pragmatic trials met all 11 criteria evaluated and most of the trials met between 5 and 8 of the criteria. Criteria most often unmet pertained to practitioner expertise (by requiring specialists) and criteria most often met pertained to primary outcome analysis (by using intention-to-treat analysis). Conclusion. Our results suggest a lack of highly pragmatic trials in OA research. We identify this as a point of opportunity to improve research translation, since optimizing the design and reporting of pragmatic trials can facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions for OA care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts.Methods: A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design.Results: Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1 year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one.Conclusions: PRECIS-2 has proved useful for "framing the conversation" about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project's focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US. Methods The study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives. Results A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7-37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7-14.0%) ( P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent. Conclusions The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementation Science (IS) studies the adoption of interventions into clinical practice, taking into account real-world populations and clinical settings. While randomized control trials (RCTs) assess the efficacy of interventions, implementation research is necessary to assess the implementation of these interventions. IS attempts to understand and address the processes used, as well as possible barriers and facilitators to adoption by providers and organizational systems. This paper introduces several study designs and methods that are critical to inform IS studies including pragmatic trials, hybrid designs, qualitative research methods, and mixed methods.Pragmatic trialsaim to assess the effectiveness of interventions in routine clinical practice andhybrid designsmeasure both intervention effects and assess how they are implemented.Qualitative researchmethods require the consideration of numerous contextual factors, such as providers’ perspectives and environmental variables that are not easily quantifiable, whereasmixed methodsintegrates both quantitative and qualitative designs. Hypothetical studies of the implementation of a swallowing screening protocol and of a school-based literacy intervention are used to illustrate the use of these approaches. The application of pragmatic and hybrid designs, and qualitative and mixed methods hold promise for gathering evidence that may improve the quality and efficiency of services provided by speech-language pathologists and other related professions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trials which test the effectiveness of interventions compared with the status quo frequently encounter challenges. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design is an innovative approach to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials which seeks to address some of these challenges.Main Text: In this article, we report our experiences with the first completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the cmRCT design. This trial-the Depression in South Yorkshire (DEPSY) trial-involved comparison of treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU plus the offer of an intervention for people with self-reported long-term moderate to severe depression. In the trial, we used an existing large population-based cohort: the Yorkshire Health Study. We discuss our experiences with recruitment, attrition, crossover, data analysis, generalisability of results, and cost. The main challenges in using the cmRCT design were the high crossover to the control group and the lower questionnaire response rate among patients who refused the offer of treatment. However, the design did help facilitate efficient and complete recruitment of the trial population as well as analysable data that were generalisable to the population of interest. Attrition rates were also smaller than those reported in other depression trials.Conclusion: This first completed full trial using the cmRCT design testing an intervention for self-reported depression was associated with a number of important benefits. Further research is required to compare the acceptability and cost effectiveness of standard pragmatic RCT design with the cmRCT design.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN02484593 . Registered on 7 Jan 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior to commencing a randomised controlled trial, we conducted a focused ethnography to ensure that the trial was well suited to the proposed setting.Methods: A six-month observation of a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service site in the North-East of England was undertaken to observe the site procedures, staff culture and patient care pathways. During this period, documentary data were collected and interviews were conducted with key informants to provide insight into staff perceptions of the proposed trial. The data were coded using thematic analysis and the resulting themes were verified by a second coder.Results: Seventeen documents were collected, 158 h of observation and six formal staff interviews were undertaken. Four themes emerged from the data; non-clinically orientated variation in practice, diagnosis, capacity and staff economy. Non-clinically orientated variation in practice occurred when staff decisions were based upon resource availability rather than on clinical judgement. Diagnosis demonstrated differing staff confidence in making diagnoses and in the treatment of patients who had received a diagnosis. Capacity consisted of the time to attend training and the psychological capacity to consider or incorporate learning into practice. Staff economy was characterised by staff changes and shortages. There was significant interaction between the themes, with staff economy emerging as a central barrier to research. The results directly informed adaptations to the trial protocol.Conclusions: An ethnographic approach has provided important insights into the individual, practical and organisational boundaries into which a trial would need to be implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Denture-related erythematous stomatitis (DES) is a chronic biofilm-mediated disease, affecting one in every three complete denture wearers. Antifungals are the treatment most commonly prescribed by oral health professionals, based on the belief that colonization by Candida spp. is the main cause of DES. However, high recurrence rates and adverse effects are commonly observed, prompting the need for practice guidelines regarding treatment. Results from our pilot study demonstrate that palatal brushing can reduce the palatal inflammation and potentially associated Candida carriage without any need for antifungal therapy. The objective of this study is to validate these pilot results by means of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and provide a practice guideline for clinicians.Methods/design: A pragmatic, two-parallel-arm, multicenter RCT will be conducted in Canada, Brazil, and Chile. Fifty-two adult complete denture wearers presenting with moderate to severe DES will be allocated randomly to two groups: the Intervention arm will consist of palatal brushing and standard oral and denture hygiene measures, while the Control arm will include only standard oral and denture hygiene measures. The study outcome will be the oral Candida carriage. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months post intervention. Descriptive, bivariate, and mixed models with repeated measures will be performed following the intention-to-treat principle.Discussion: This pragmatic RCT will serve to provide a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of preventive measures in the treatment of biofilm-mediated oral diseases. Moreover, it will have a great impact on reducing the harm of antifungal overtreatment on patients suffering from DES.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02686632 . Registered on 15 February 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pragmatic trials aim to directly inform health care decision-making through the collection of so-called 'real world data' from observations of comparative treatment effects in clinical practice. In order to ensure the applicability and feasibility of a pragmatic trial, design features may be necessary that deviate from standard research ethics requirements. Examples are traditional requirements to seek written informed consent and to perform extensive data and safety monitoring. Proposals for deviations from standard research ethics practice have resulted in controversy about their ethical acceptability. One of the justifications for altered procedures is the allegedly high social value of pragmatic trials. In order to properly operationalize the concept in the ethical assessment of pragmatic trial designs, specification is warranted. We identified three determinants from common claims about a pragmatic trial's social value: (1) the extent to which the research question has real world relevance, (2) the trial design's ability to generate a real world answer and (3) the probability of direct uptake of the results by decision-makers in practice. Subsequently, we discuss how these determinants should be applied to the practice of pragmatic trials, and to what extent they might be applicable to explanatory trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic cluster-randomised trials should seek to make unbiased estimates of effect and be reported according to CONSORT principles, and the study population should be representative of the target population. This is challenging when conducting trials amongst 'hidden' populations without a sample frame. We describe a pair-matched cluster-randomised trial of a combination HIV-prevention intervention to reduce the proportion of female sex workers (FSW) with a detectable HIV viral load in Zimbabwe, recruiting via respondent driven sampling (RDS).Methods: We will cross-sectionally survey approximately 200 FSW at baseline and at endline to characterise each of 14 sites. RDS is a variant of chain referral sampling and has been adapted to approximate random sampling. Primary analysis will use the 'RDS-2' method to estimate cluster summaries and will adapt Hayes and Moulton's '2-step' method to adjust effect estimates for individual-level confounders and further adjust for cluster baseline prevalence. We will adapt CONSORT to accommodate RDS. In the absence of observable refusal rates, we will compare the recruitment process between matched pairs. We will need to investigate whether cluster-specific recruitment or the intervention itself affects the accuracy of the RDS estimation process, potentially causing differential biases. To do this, we will calculate RDS-diagnostic statistics for each cluster at each time point and compare these statistics within matched pairs and time points. Sensitivity analyses will assess the impact of potential biases arising from assumptions made by the RDS-2 estimation.Discussion: We are not aware of any other completed pragmatic cluster RCTs that are recruiting participants using RDS. Our statistical design and analysis approach seeks to transparently document participant recruitment and allow an assessment of the representativeness of the study to the target population, a key aspect of pragmatic trials. The challenges we have faced in the design of this trial are likely to be shared in other contexts aiming to serve the needs of legally and/or socially marginalised populations for which no sampling frame exists and especially when the social networks of participants are both the target of intervention and the means of recruitment. The trial was registered at Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201312000722390) on 9 December 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Pharmaceutical pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to provide the type of evidence that is desired by patients, clinicians and payers but too often missing from traditional regulatory trials. Purpose: This paper presents framework for designing pragmatic trials incorporating evidence desired by post-regulatory decision makers while remaining within acceptable standards for regulatory approval. Methods: Following a stakeholder meeting convened in May of 2009 to identify gaps in information collected in Phase 3 trials, CMTP staff and the authors drafted recommendations for Pragmatic Phase 3 Pharmaceutical Trials. This draft was circulated first to technical working group members for their comments. After revising the document based on these comments, it was distributed electronically to other select experts and then made available for public comment. The final version of the EGD appears on the CMTP website. Results: The process resulted in a set of 10 recommendations for conducting Phase 3 trials that met regulatory needs while addressing information important to physicians, patients, payers, and policy-makers. These recommendations encompassed three primary areas: generalizability from the trial participants to the clinical population of interest; effectiveness relative to active comparators; and consistently measured relevant outcomes for coverage and treatment decisions. Limitations: While stakeholders were involved throughout the process, not all recommendations will meet the needs of all stakeholders. Conclusions: Pragmatic trial design need not be deferred until a product is in widespread use. Incremental movement toward the more pragmatic design of Phase 3 trials is desirable. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: It is widely recognized that traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have limited generalizability due to the numerous ways in which conditions of RCTs differ from those experienced each day by patients and physicians. As a result, there has been a recent push towards pragmatic trials that better mimic real-world conditions. One way in which RCTs differ from normal everyday experience is that all patients in the trial have uncertainty about what treatment they were assigned. Outside of the RCT setting, if a patient is prescribed a drug then there is no reason for them to wonder if it is a placebo. Uncertainty about treatment assignment could affect both treatment and placebo response. We use a potential outcomes approach to define relevant causal effects based on combinations of treatment assignment and belief about treatment assignment. We show that traditional RCTs are designed to estimate a quantity that is typically not of primary interest. We propose a new study design that has the potential to provide information about a wider range of interesting causal effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]