Generalizability Of Trials Research Articles

Leisure-time physical activity interventions for children and adults with cerebral palsy: a scoping review.

To summarize current evidence on the effects and reach of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) interventions among children and adults with cerebral palsy (CP). Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LTPA interventions in CP. Data from eligible studies were extracted for qualitative synthesis. Forty-nine studies enrolled a total of 1513 participants (mean [SD] age 13y [7y], range 5-43y; 818 males, 655 females, 40 not reported) and primarily included ambulatory children. RCTs underrepresented adults and people in Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV and V. Forty-one studies reported at least one favorable benefit from LTPA. Benefits included improvements to musculoskeletal strength, cardiorespiratory fitness, quality of life, spasticity, participation, and core aspects of physical function. Regarding reach, only 34% of people that were contacted to participate enrolled within a study. A smaller percentage of participants dropped out from intervention (8%) and follow-up periods (3%). Study findings highlight effective interventions to improve health, fitness, and function. To enhance the reach and generalizability of LTPA trials for CP, future studies should examine how to increase study sample sizes and aim to include a better representation of adults and people in GMFCS levels IV and V. People with cerebral palsy (CP) may experience improvements in health, fitness, and physical function from leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) interventions. Effective interventions include exercise training, active video games, recreation activities, behavioral coaching, and motor skills training. Interventions that incorporate telehealth technology, behavioral coaching, and community resources may enhance LTPA. Interventions primarily include children in Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS) levels I to III. Adults, wheelchair users, and those in GMFCS levels IV and V are underrepresented.

Abstract 17202: Racial/Ethnic Minority Underreporting and Underrepresentation in Guideline-Driving Blood Cholesterol Clinical Trials

Introduction: Cholesterol management is the cornerstone of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention. Diverse racial/ethnic participation in high-impact cholesterol trials is essential for the generalizability of trials and guidelines across the United States (US). Methods: We analyzed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited in the 2018 American Multi-society Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol for reporting and representation of racial/ethnic minorities. We extracted participant level racial/ethnic data, including non-Hispanic White (NHW), Black, Hispanic, or Asian groups. For each race/ethnicity, we pooled trial data to assess overall representation compared to the general US population based on 2010 US Census and 2019 US Census American Community Survey estimates. Results: Among 71 cited RCTs from 1984 - 2017, 59.1% reported racial/ethnic data. NHW participation was reported in 58%, Black in 34%, Hispanic in 27%, and Asian in 17% (Figure). Four trials disaggregated Hispanic patients and none disaggregated Asians. Black trial representation was significantly lower than the US population per 2010 and 2019 Census data (trial: 5.5%, 2010: 12.6%, 2019: 13.4%, P <0.001). Hispanic trial representation was significantly lower compared to the US population (trial: 10.6%, 2010: 16.3%, 2019: 18.3%, P <0.001). NHW trial participation was lower compared to the US population (trial 69.2%; 2010: 72.4%; 2019: 76.5%, P <0.001), but with smaller relative differences compared to Black and Hispanic representation. Asian participation was higher than US census representation. Conclusion: Among guideline-driving cholesterol RCTs, Black and Hispanic participants are significantly underrepresented compared to the general U.S. population. Few studies disaggregate major racial/ethnic subgroups. These findings represent a source of systemic bias that may limit the generalizability of trials and guidelines and potentiate health inequities.

Assessment of the Generalizability of Clinical Trials of Delirium Interventions

Assessment of the Generalizability of Clinical Trials of Delirium Interventions

Clinical Trials during Covid-19

The current novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to substantial changes in health risks, access to health care, and daily interactions. Through these and other challenges, the pandemic is affecting ongoing clinical trials that are evaluating interventions aimed at preventing or treating diseases other than COVID-19. Meaningful alterations to the implementation of protocol-specified procedures for adherence and retention of study participants, without careful consideration of the consequences to statistical analysis, can compromise the generalizability of clinical trial results about efficacy and safety of studied interventions in the postpandemic setting [1].

Ten-Year Trends in Enrollment of Women and Minorities in Pivotal Trials Supporting Recent US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiometabolic Drugs.

BackgroundIn 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration established guidelines to increase diversity by sex and race/ethnicity of participants in clinical trials supporting novel drug approvals. In this study we investigated the 10‐year trends of participation of women and minorities in pivotal trials supporting approval of new molecular entities in cardiometabolic drugs from January 2008 to December 2017.Methods and ResultsA list of new molecular entities was abstracted from publicly available data at Drugs@Fda. Sex and race/ethnicity data were collected from trial publications. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relation between drug approval year and proportion of women and minorities enrolled. Thirty‐five novel cardiovascular (n=24) and diabetes mellitus (n=11) drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration during the study period. The median number of participants supporting each drug was 5930 (interquartile range, 3175–10 942). Women represented 36% (n=108 052) of trial participants (n=296 163). Women were underrepresented compared with their proportion of the disease population in trials of coronary heart disease (participation‐to‐prevalence ratio, 0.52), heart failure (participation‐to‐prevalence ratio, 0.58), and acute coronary syndrome (participation‐to‐prevalence ratio, 0.68). Among trial participants, 81% were white, 4% black, 12% Asian, and 11% Hispanic/Latino. There was no significant association between enrollment of women (P=0.29) or underrepresented minorities (P=0.45) with the drug approval year.ConclusionsOver the past decade (2008–2017), women and minorities, particularly blacks, have continued to be inadequately represented in pivotal cardiometabolic clinical trials that support US Food and Drug Administration approval of new molecular entities. This may have major implications in determining efficacy of such therapies in these groups, and may impair generalizability of trial results to routine clinical practice.

Survival among colorectal cancer patients with a history of previous cancer.

e16146 Background: A growing number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have survived a previous cancer. Although little is known about their prognosis, this population is frequently excluded from clinical trials. We examined the impact of previous cancer on overall and cancer-specific survival in a population-based cohort of patients diagnosed with incident CRC. Methods: We identified patients aged ≥66 years and diagnosed with CRC between 2005-2015 in linked SEER-Medicare data. For patients with and without previous cancer, we estimated overall survival using Cox regression and cause-specific survival using competing risk regression, separately by CRC stage, while adjusting for numerous covariates and competing risk of death from previous cancer, other causes, or the incident CRC. Results: Of 112,769 CRC patients diagnosed with incident CRC, 15,935 (14.1%) had a previous cancer – most commonly prostate (32.9%) or breast (19.4%) cancer, with many 7505 (47.1%) diagnosed ≤5 years of CRC. For all CRC stages except IV in which there was no significant difference in survival, patients with previous cancer had modestly worse overall survival (hazard ratios from fully adjusted models range from 1.11-1.28 across stages; see Table). This survival disadvantage was driven by deaths due to previous cancer and other causes. Notably, most patients with previous cancer had improved CRC-specific survival. Conclusions: CRC patients who have survived a previous cancer have generally worse overall survival but superior CRC-specific survival. This evidence should be considered concurrently with concerns about trial generalizability, low accrual, and heterogeneity of participants when determining exclusion criteria. [Table: see text]

Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community.

To address doubts regarding National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) generalizability, we analyzed over 6,000 lung cancer screenings (LCSs) within a community health system. Our LCS program included 10 sites, 7 hospitals (2 non-university tertiary care, 5 community) and 3 free-standing imaging centers. Primary care clinicians referred patients. Standard criteria determined eligibility. Dedicated radiologists interpreted all LCSs, assigning Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories. All category 4 Lung-RADS scans underwent multidisciplinary review and management recommendations. Data was prospectively collected from November 2013 through December 2018 and retrospectively analyzed. Of 4,666 referrals, 1,264 individuals were excluded or declined, and 3,402 individuals underwent initial LCS. Second through eighth LCSs were performed on 2,758 patients, for a total of 6,161 LCSs. Intervention rate after LCS was 14.6% (500 individuals) and was most often additional imaging. Invasive interventions (n = 226) were performed, including 141 diagnostic procedures and 85 surgeries in 176 individuals (procedure rate 6.6%). Ninety-five lung cancers were diagnosed: 84 non-small cell (stage 1: 60; stage 2: 7; stage 3: 9; stage 4: 8), and 11 small cell lung cancers. The procedural adverse event rate was 23/226 (10.1%) in 21 patients (0.6% of all screened individuals). Pneumothorax (n = 10) was the most frequent, 6 requiring pleural drainage. There were 2 deaths among 85 surgeries or 2.3% surgical mortality. Our LCS experience in a community setting demonstrated lung cancer diagnosis, stage shift, intervention frequency, and adverse event rate similar to the NLST. This study confirms that LCS can be performed successfully, safely, and with equivalence to the NLST in a community health care setting.

Evaluation of the representativeness and generalizability of Japanese clinical trials for localized rectal/colon cancer: Comparing participants in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group study with patients in Japanese registries

IntroductionIt is unclear if clinical trial results including patients who meet trial eligibility criteria, are applicable to actual patients in daily practice (generalizability). Moreover, the extent to which are trial participants different from patients seen in daily practice (representativeness) is also unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the representativeness of the patients registered in randomized clinical trials to patients in daily practice and examine the generalizability of trial results to daily practice. MethodsWe compared the results of surgical trials conducted by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group with data from two Japanese cancer registries, representing patients seen in daily practice. We compared overall survival (OS) between trial participants and registry patients to evaluate representativeness of trial participants. We then compared the OS of registry patients who received open surgery (OP) and laparoscopic surgery (LAP) to evaluate the generalizability of trial results. ResultsWe analyzed 3051 patients (701 in JCOG0212, 2350 registry patients) with rectal cancer and 3116 patients (1057 in JCOG0404, 2059 registry patients) with colon cancer. Trial participants tended to possess lower clinical stages. Multivariable analyses revealed registry patients with significantly worse survival compared with trial participants. The hazard ratio of LAP to OP among registry patients was 0.305 (95% CI; 0.048–2.188), which did not meet the prespecified generalizability criteria of 0.9. ConclusionsOur results failed to ensure either the representativeness or generalizability of clinical trial results, compared to daily practice. Careful considerations are required when applying trial results to patients in daily practice.

Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.

Clinical studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are essential for generating evidence for clinical practice. However, generalizability is a long‐standing concern when applying trial results to real‐world patients. Generalizability assessment is thus important, nevertheless, not consistently practiced. We performed a systematic review to understand the practice of generalizability assessment. We identified 187 relevant articles and systematically organized these studies in a taxonomy with three dimensions: (i) data availability (i.e., before or after trial (a priori vs. a posteriori generalizability)); (ii) result outputs (i.e., score vs. nonscore); and (iii) populations of interest. We further reported disease areas, underrepresented subgroups, and types of data used to profile target populations. We observed an increasing trend of generalizability assessments, but < 30% of studies reported positive generalizability results. As a priori generalizability can be assessed using only study design information (primarily eligibility criteria), it gives investigators a golden opportunity to adjust the study design before the trial starts. Nevertheless, < 40% of the studies in our review assessed a priori generalizability. With the wide adoption of electronic health records systems, rich real‐world patient databases are increasingly available for generalizability assessment; however, informatics tools are lacking to support the adoption of generalizability assessment practice.

Generalizability of Clinical Trials Supporting the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline

This study uses National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to evaluate whether patients enrolled in the clinical trials that support the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline are representative of the US adult population recommended additional pharmacotherapy by the ACC/AHA guideline.

Real-world outcomes and factors impacting treatment choice in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): a comparison of VRd, KRd, and IRd

ABSTRACTLack of head-to-head trials highlights a need for comparative real-world evidence of proteasome inhibitors plus Rd.Methods: In this retrospective, US population-representative EHR study of RRMM patients initiating IRd, KRd, or VRd in line of therapy (LOT) ≥2 between 1/2014 and 9/30/2018, 664 patients were treated in LOT ≥2 with: IRd, n = 168; KRd, n = 208; VRd, n = 357. Median age was 71/65/71 years; 67%/70%/75% had a frailtymodified score of intermediate/frail; 20%/28%/13% had high cytogenetic risk in I-/K-/V-Rd groups. Risk of PI-triplet discontinuation was lower for I- vs. K-Rd (HR: 0.71) and I- vs. V-Rd (HR: 0.85); unadjusted, median TTNTs (months): 12.7/8.6/14.2 (LOT ≥2) and 16.8/9.5/14.6 (LOT 2–3) (I-/K-/V-Rd). Adjusted TTNT was comparable between I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 with a TTNT benefit among intermediate/frail patients for I- (HR: 0.70; P=0.04) and V- (HR: 0.73; P<0.05) vs. K-Rd. I/K/V-Rd triplets were comparable in TTNT overall, but IRd and VRd were associated with longer TTNT in intermediate/frail patients than KRd. The results suggest a trial-efficacy/real-world-effectiveness gap, especially for KRd, underlining the limited generalizability of trial results where >50% of patients are excluded. Individualized treatment based on patient characteristics, such as frailty status, is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population.

Glucocorticoid-trials in rheumatoid arthritis mostly study representative real-world patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in clinical research due to credible causality. Their results, however, may not be generalizable to real-world populations. While glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a mainstay of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is unclear whether the results of GC-RCTs are generalizable to current real-world RA patients. MethodsMEDLINE was searched for RCTs and, as comparators, cohort studies (CSs) in RA evaluating systemic GCs. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for descriptive baseline characteristics (including general demographics, comorbidities, and disease activity) that have been shown to be able to modify the benefit-risk-ratio of various RA therapeutics. These meta-analyses were stratified by study type (RCT and CS). Stratified estimates were subsequently compared. Further sensitivity analyses were performed stratifying by disease duration. Results56 RCTs (7053 participants) and 10 CSs (14,688 participants) were included. 12 characteristics were reported frequently enough to allow for comparative analysis. In 10/12 characteristics (83%), RCT estimates did not appear to differ from CS estimates. However, RCT participants were younger (-4.7 years [95% CI -7.2 to -2.1]; p < 0.001) and had higher erythrocyte sedimentation rates (11.8 mm/h [5.7 to 17.8]; p < 0.001) than CS participants. Comorbidities could not be assessed due to insufficient reporting. ConclusionOur findings suggest that evidence from GC trials in RA is of acceptable generalizability to current real-world patients – especially compared to findings from biologic agents in RA. However, RCT participants were younger than real-world patients, potentially limiting the generalizability of trial results to elderly patients. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019134675)

A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14\u2009days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards

BackgroundThe optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit (ICU) patients with bloodstream infection to 7 versus 14 days of treatment, and served as the vanguard for the ongoing BALANCE main RCT. We performed this BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT to examine the feasibility and impact of potentially extending the BALANCE main RCT to include patients hospitalized on non-ICU wards.MethodsWe conducted an open pilot RCT among a subset of six sites participating in the ongoing BALANCE RCT, randomizing patients with positive non-Staphylococcus aureus blood cultures on non-ICU wards to 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. We compared feasibility outcomes, patient/pathogen characteristics, and overall outcomes among those enrolled in this BALANCE-Ward and prior BALANCE-ICU pilot RCTs. We estimated the sample size and non-inferiority margin impacts of expanding the BALANCE main RCT to include non-ICU patients.ResultsA total of 134 patients were recruited over 47 site-months (mean 2.9 patients/site-month, median 1.0, range 0.1–4.4 patients/site-month). The overall recruitment rate exceeded the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (mean 1.10 patients/site-month, p < 0.0001). Overall protocol adherence also exceeded the adherence in the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (125/134, 93% vs 89/115, 77%, p = 0.0003). BALANCE-Ward patients were older, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, and higher proportions of infections caused by Escherichia coli and genito-urinary sources of bloodstream infection. The BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT patients had an overall 90-day mortality rate of 17/133 (12.8%), which was comparable to the 90-day mortality rate in the ICU pilot RCT (17/115, 14.8%) (p = 0.65). Simulation models indicated there would be minimal sample size and non-inferiority margin implications of expanding enrolment to increasing proportions of non-ICU versus ICU patients.ConclusionIt is feasible to enroll non-ICU patients in a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotics for bloodstream infection, and expanding the BALANCE RCT hospital-wide has the potential to improve the timeliness and generalizability of trial results.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02917551. Registered on September 28, 2016.

Characteristics Associated with Participation in ENGAGED 2 - A Web-based Breast Cancer Risk Communication and Decision Support Trial.

We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics associated with participation in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of an online tool to support breast cancer risk communication and decision support for risk mitigation to determine the generalizability of trial results. Eligible women were members of Kaiser Permanente Washington aged 40-69 years with a recent normal screening mammogram, heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and a calculated risk of > 1.67% based on the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year breast cancer risk model. Trial outcomes were chemoprevention and breast magnetic resonance imaging by 12-months post-baseline. Women were recruited via mail with phone follow-up using plain language materials notifying them of their density status and higher than average breast cancer risk. Multivariable logistic regression calculated independent odds ratios (ORs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with trial participation. Of 2,569 eligible women contacted, 995 (38.7%) participated. Women with some college (OR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.96) or college degree (OR = 3.35, 95% CI 2.29-4.90) were more likely to participate than high school-educated women. Race/ethnicity also was associated with participation (African-American OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87; Asian OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41). Multivariate adjusted ORs for family history of breast/ovarian cancer were not associated with trial participation. Use of plain language and potential access to a website providing personal breast cancer risk information and education were insufficient in achieving representative participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Additional methods of targeting and tailoring, potentially facilitated by clinical and community outreach, are needed to facilitate equitable engagement for all women.

Generalizability of pharmacologic and psychotherapy trial results for late-life unipolar depression

Objectives Despite evidence of low representativeness of clinical trial results for depression in adults, the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression is unknown. This study sought to quantify the representativeness of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trial results for late-life unipolar depression. Method Data were derived from the 2004–2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the United States population. To assess the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression, we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials to all individuals aged 65 years and older in NESARC with a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDE and no lifetime history of mania/hypomania (n = 273) and in a subsample of individuals seeking help for depression (n = 78). Results More than four of ten respondents and about two of ten respondents would have been excluded by at least one exclusion criterion in a typical pharmacologic and psychotherapy efficacy trial, respectively. Similar results (i.e.41.1% and 25.9%, respectively) were found in the subsample of individuals seeking help for depression. Excess percentage of exclusion in typical pharmacologic studies was accounted for by the criterion “significant medical condition”. We also found that populations typically included in pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials for late-life unipolar depression may substantially differ. Conclusion Psychotherapy trial results may be representative of most patients with late-life unipolar depression in routine clinical practice. By contrast, pharmacologic clinical trials may not be readily generalizable to community samples.

Short Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval Is Associated with Higher Levels of Circulating Tumor DNA in Aggressive B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

BACKGROUND Selection biases can impair the generalizability of clinical trials. Studies investigating aggressive diseases such as Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) can be particularly affected by such biases since clinical urgency and need for therapy may not allow the requisite extensive screening and consent processes for trials. Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval (DTI) has recently been proposed as a novel metric to capture this phenomenon (Maurer et al, JCO, 2018), and short DTI is associated with both adverse clinical factors and adverse clinical outcomes. Intriguingly, DTI was independent of clinical risk factors like the International Prognostic Index (IPI) suggesting that widely applied prognostic scores do not adequately reflect risk factors considered for clinical decision making. In this study, we aim to assess whether pretreatment levels of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are associated with shorter DTI and may constitute an objective measure of clinical urgency. METHODS We quantified pretreatment ctDNA levels in plasma samples from 178 patients treated in 5 US and European centers for large cell lymphoma (DLBCL, Follicular lymphoma grade 3b, or High-grade-B-cell-lymphoma) using Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq) as previously described (Kurtz, JCO 2018; Scherer, STM 2016). Pretreatment ctDNA levels were correlated with DTI, clinical factors and treatment outcome. RESULTS Pretreatment ctDNA was detectable in 175/178 cases. Median number of single nucleotide variants (SNV) detected per patient was 129 (range 0-628). Pretreatment ctDNA levels ranged from 0 - 1.4 x105 haploid genome equivalents per milliliter of plasma (hGE/ml, median 239). Median DTI was 19 days (range 0-141, Figure 1A) and was similar in distribution to 2 previously described cohorts from the US and Europe (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Shorter DTI was associated with higher ctDNA levels (RS=-0.39, P= 1.4 x10-7, Figure 1B). Patients with longer DTI had improved Event-Free Survival (EFS, Hazard Ratio (HR) for DTI: 0.9/week, P= 0.03). However, this association was lost when adjusting for pretreatment ctDNA levels (HR for DTI: 0.95/week, P= 0.39; HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.7, P= 5.8 x10-5). In a multivariate analysis including DTI, ctDNA and IPI, only ctDNA levels were significantly associated with EFS (HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.6, P= 0.002, n=178, Figure 1C). Pretreatment ctDNA levels remained the only prognostic factor for EFS in a second multivariate analysis also considering pretreatment metabolic tumor volume (MTV, HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.8, P= 0.01, n=93, Figure 1D). DISCUSSION Shorter DTI is associated with higher pretreatment ctDNA levels in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas. When comparing to established factors (DTI, IPI, MTV), pretreatment ctDNA levels appear to best predict clinical outcomes. This suggests that quantification of ctDNA better reflects disease burden and treatment urgency than existing clinical biomarkers. Pretreatment ctDNA level may therefore be a valuable metric for disease aggressiveness of patients included in clinical trials, and may help identify studies suffering from selection bias. This may be particularly useful for noncontrolled Phase I/II single arm trials, but also for stratification in randomized trials. Disclosures Kurtz: Roche: Consultancy. Dührsen:Alexion: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; CPT: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hüttmann:Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; University Hospital Essen: Employment. Westin:Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi:Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Diehn:Novartis: Consultancy; BioNTech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Quanticell: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Alizadeh:Pfizer: Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy.

Clinical Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Among Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)-Eligible and RCT-Ineligible Patients: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

Clinical Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Among Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)-Eligible and RCT-Ineligible Patients: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

GENERALIZABILITY OF CLINICAL TRIALS OF DELIRIUM INTERVENTIONS

Delirium, or acute confusional state, affects up to 7 million hospitalized older adults annually, and is associated with increased risk of mortality, institutionalization, and cognitive and functional impairment. There has been a proliferation of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical trials to reduce the incidence and sequelae of delirium. In other neuropsychiatric disorders, exclusion criteria prevent up to 75% of individuals with the condition under study from participating. It is unclear how well these trial samples represent the population of older adults with delirium. We selected all intervention trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov containing the keyword “delirium” (N=131), regardless of type of intervention. We manually examined study descriptions to restrict analysis to studies with delirium as a primary or secondary outcome (N=92). Of these 92 studies, 76% enrolled only adults, with 45% enrolling only older adults. 38% of studies were restricted to surgical units, 27% to intensive care units, and 7.6% to medical units. Only 1 study examined nursing homes and 4 studies examined palliative care. 50% of studies excluded individuals with pre-existing dementia, 28% excluded individuals with psychiatric disorders, and 30% excluded individuals with neurological disorders. 34% of studies excluded individuals with alcohol or drug abuse. Overall, many intervention studies for delirium are limited to the surgical and ICU populations, and they exclude individuals with common comorbidities associated with an increased risk of delirium. Similar to other neuropsychiatric disorders, these findings raise significant concerns about the generalizability of clinical trials in delirium to the hospitalized older adult population.

INFORMED CONSENT IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

Informed consent is one of the most important processes during the implementation of a clinical trial; special attention must be given to meeting the needs of persons with dementia in nursing homes who have impaired decision making capacity. We overcame several challenges during enrollment and consent of potential participants in a pilot clinical trial including: (1) the consent document was designed for legally authorized representatives however some potential participants were capable of making their own decisions; (2) the written document was lengthy yet all seven pages were required by the IRB; (3) the required legal wording was difficult to understand and deterred potential participants; and (4) the primary mode of communication was via phone. We tailored assent and informed consent procedures to persons with dementia and their legally authorized representative/surrogate decision maker to avoid risking an incomplete trial and to improve generalizability of trial results to all persons with dementia.

Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research

BackgroundExperimental designs for evaluating knowledge translation (KT) interventions can provide strong estimates of effectiveness but offer limited insight into how the intervention worked. Consequently, process evaluations have been used to explore the causal mechanisms at work; however, there are limited standards to guide this work. This study synthesizes current evidence of KT process evaluations to provide future methodological recommendations.MethodsPeer-reviewed search strategies were developed by a health research librarian. Studies had to be in English, published since 1996, and were not excluded based on design. Studies had to (1) be a process evaluation of a KT intervention study in primary health, (2) be a primary research study, and (3) include a licensed healthcare professional delivering or receiving the intervention. A two-step, two-person hybrid screening approach was used for study inclusion with inter-rater reliability ranging from 94 to 95%. Data on study design, data collection, theoretical influences, and approaches used to evaluate the KT intervention, analysis, and outcomes were extracted by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).ResultsOf the 20,968 articles screened, 226 studies fit our inclusion criteria. The majority of process evaluations used qualitative forms of data collection (43.4%) and individual interviews as the predominant data collection method. 72.1% of studies evaluated barriers and/or facilitators to implementation. 59.7% of process evaluations were stand-alone evaluations. The timing of data collection varied widely with post-intervention data collection being the most frequent (46.0%). Only 38.1% of the studies were informed by theory. Furthermore, 38.9% of studies had MMAT scores of 50 or less indicating poor methodological quality.ConclusionsThere is widespread acceptance that the generalizability of quantitative trials of KT interventions would be significantly enhanced through complementary process evaluations. However, this systematic review found that process evaluations are of mixed quality and lack theoretical guidance. Most process evaluation data collection occurred post-intervention undermining the ability to evaluate the process of implementation. Strong science and methodological guidance is needed to underpin and guide the design and execution of process evaluations in KT science.RegistrationThis study is not registered with PROSPERO.