Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial Research Articles

Sequenced Treatment Effectiveness for Posttraumatic Stress (STEPS) Trial: A protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with baseline results

BackgroundThere have only been two efficacy trials reporting a head-to-head comparison of medications and psychotherapy for PTSD, and neither was conducted in primary care. Therefore, this protocol paper describes a pragmatic trial that compares outcomes of primary care patients randomized to initially receive a brief trauma-focused psychotherapy or a choice of three antidepressants. In addition, because there are few trials examining the effectiveness of subsequent treatments for patients not responding to the initial treatment, this pragmatic trial also compares the outcomes of those switching or augmenting treatments. MethodPatients screening positive for PTSD (n = 700) were recruited from the primary care clinics of 7 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and 8 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and randomized in the ratio 1:1:2 to one of three treatment sequences: 1) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) followed by augmentation with Written Exposure Therapy (WET), 2) SSRI followed by a switch to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), or 3) WET followed by a switch to SSRI. Participants complete surveys at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months. The primary outcome is PTSD symptom severity as measured by the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5). ResultsAverage PCL-5 scores (M = 52.8, SD = 11.1) indicated considerable severity. The most common bothersome traumatic event for VA enrollees was combat (47.8%), and for FQHC enrollees was other (28.2%), followed by sexual assault (23.4%), and child abuse (19.8%). Only 22.4% were taking an antidepressant at baseline. ConclusionResults will help healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions about which treatments to offer to patients.

Telephone-Based Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Optimization in Navajo Nation

Underutilization of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a major cause of poor outcomes. For many American Indian patients receiving care through the Indian Health Service, access to care, especially cardiology care, is limited, contributing to poor uptake of recommended therapy. To examine whether a telehealth model in which guideline-directed medical therapy is initiated and titrated over the phone with remote telemonitoring using a home blood pressure cuff improves guideline-directed medical therapy use (eg, drug classes and dosage) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Navajo Nation. The Heart Failure Optimization at Home to Improve Outcomes (Hózhó) randomized clinical trial was a stepped-wedge, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial conducted from February to August 2023. Patients 18 years and older with a diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving care at 2 Indian Health Service facilities in rural Navajo Nation (defined as having primary care physician with 1 clinical visit and 1 prescription filled in the last 12 months) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to the telehealth care model or usual care in a stepped-wedge fashion, with 5 time points (30-day intervals) until all patients crossed over into the intervention. Data analyses were completed in January 2024. A phone-based telehealth model in which guideline-directed medical therapy is initiated and titrated at home, using remote telemonitoring with a home blood pressure cuff. The primary outcome was an increase in the number of guideline-directed classes of drugs filled from the pharmacy at 30 days postrandomization. Of 103 enrolled American Indian patients, 42 (40.8%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 65 (53-77) years. The median (IQR) left ventricular ejection fraction was 32% (24%-36%). The primary outcome occurred significantly more in the intervention group (66.2% vs 13.1%), thus increasing uptake of guideline-directed classes of drugs by 53% (odds ratio, 12.99; 95% CI, 6.87-24.53; P < .001). The number of patients needed to receive the telehealth intervention to result in an increase of guideline-directed drug classes was 1.88. In this heart failure trial in Navajo Nation, a telephone-based strategy of remote initiation and titration for outpatients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction led to improved rates of guideline-directed medical therapy at 30 days compared with usual care. This low-cost strategy could be expanded to other rural settings where access to care is limited. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05792085.

A Multisite Electronic Health Record Integrated Remote Monitoring Intervention for Hypertension Improvement: Protocol for a Randomized Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Hypertension is a major contributor to various adverse health outcomes. Although previous studies have shown the benefits of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring over office-based measurements, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of whether a BP monitor integrated into the electronic health record is superior to a nonintegrated BP monitor. In this paper, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic multisite implementation of a quality improvement initiative directly comparing integrated to nonintegrated BP monitors for hypertension improvement. We will conduct a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial at 3 large academic health centers across California. The 3 sites will enroll a total of 660 participants (approximately n=220 per site), with 330 in the integrated BP monitor arm and 330 in the nonintegrated BP control arm. The primary outcome of this study will be the absolute difference in systolic BP in mm Hg from enrollment to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include binary measures of hypertension (controlled vs uncontrolled), hypertension-related health complications, hospitalizations, and death. The list of possible participants will be generated from a central data warehouse. Randomization will occur after enrollment in the study. Participants will use their assigned BP monitor and join site-specific hypertension interventions. Cross-site learning will occur at regular all-site meetings facilitated by the University of California, Los Angeles Value-Based Care Research Consortium. A pre- and poststudy questionnaire will be conducted to further evaluate participants' perspectives regarding their BP monitor. Linear mixed effects models will be used to compare the primary outcome measure between study arms. Mixed effects logistic regression models will be used to compare secondary outcome measures between study arms. The study will start enrolling participants in the second quarter of 2023 and will be completed by the first half of 2024. Results will be published by the end of 2024. This pragmatic trial will contribute to the growing field of chronic care management using remote monitoring by answering whether a hypertension intervention coupled with an electronic health record integrated home BP monitor improves patients' hypertension better than a hypertension intervention with a nonintegrated BP monitor. The outcomes of this study may help health system decision makers determine whether to invest in integrated BP monitors for vulnerable patient populations. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05390502; clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05390502. PRR1-10.2196/45915.

A randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial comparing medication-assisted treatment induction methods in primary care practices: The HOMER study protocol.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) represents a public health crisis in the United States. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with buprenorphine in primary care is a proven OUD treatment strategy. MOUD induction is when patients begin withdrawal and receive the first doses of buprenorphine. Differences between induction methods might influence short-term stabilization, long-term maintenance, and quality of life. This paper describes the protocol for a study designed to: (1) compare short-term stabilization and long-term maintenance treatment engagement in MOUD in patients receiving office, home, or telehealth induction and (2) identify clinically-relevant practice and patient characteristics associated with successful long-term treatment. The study design is a randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of three care models of MOUD induction in 100 primary care practices in the United States. Eligible patients are at least 16 years old, have been identified by their clinician as having opioid dependence and would benefit from MOUD. Patients will be randomized to one of three induction comparators: office, home, or telehealth induction. Primary outcomes are buprenorphine medication-taking and illicit opioid use at 30, 90, and 270 days post-induction. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and potential mediators of treatment maintenance (intentions, planning, automaticity). Potential moderators include social determinants of health, substance use history and appeal, and executive function. An intent to treat analysis will assess effects of the interventions on long-term treatment, using general/generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for covariates, for the outcomes analysis. Analysis includes practice- and patient-level random effects for hierarchical/longitudinal data. No large-scale, randomized comparative effectiveness research has compared home induction to office or telehealth MOUD induction on long-term outcomes for patients with OUD seen in primary care settings. The results of this study will offer primary care providers evidence and guidance in selecting the most beneficial induction method(s) for specific patients.

Surgical versus non-surgical management for patients with malignant bowel obstruction (S1316): a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

Malignant small bowel obstruction has a poor prognosis and is associated with multiple related symptoms. The optimal treatment approach is often unclear. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical management with the aim to determine the optimal approach for managing malignant bowel obstruction. S1316 was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial done within the National Cancer Trials Network at 30 hospital and cancer research centres in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Participants had an intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal primary cancer confirmed via pathological report and malignant bowel disease; were aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status 0-2 within 1 week before admission; had a surgical indication; and treatment equipoise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical or non-surgical treatment using a dynamic balancing algorithm, balancing on primary tumour type. Patients who declined consent for random assignment were offered a prospective observational patient choice pathway. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (good days) at 91 days. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat linear, logistic, and Cox regression models combining data from both pathways and adjusting for potential confounders. Treatment complications were assessed in all analysed patients in the study. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02270450. From May 11, 2015, to April 27, 2020, 221 patients were enrolled (143 [65%] were female and 78 [35%] were male). There were 199 evaluable participants: 49 in the randomised pathway (24 surgery and 25 non-surgery) and 150 in the patient choice pathway (58 surgery and 92 non-surgery). No difference was seen between surgery and non-surgery for the primary outcome of good days: mean 42·6 days (SD 32·2) in the randomised surgery group, 43·9 days (29·5) in the randomised non-surgery group, 54·8 days (27·0) in the patient choice surgery group, and 52·7 days (30·7) in the patient choice non-surgery group (adjusted mean difference 2·9 additional good days in surgical versus non-surgical treatment [95% CI -5·5 to 11·3]; p=0·50). During their initial hospital stay, six participants died, five due to cancer progression (four patients from the randomised pathway, two in each treatment group, and one from the patient choice pathway, in the surgery group) and one due to malignant bowel obstruction treatment complications (patient choice pathway, non-surgery). The most common grade 3-4 malignant bowel obstruction treatment complication was anaemia (three [6%] patients in the randomised pathway, all in the surgical group, and five [3%] patients in the patient choice pathway, four in the surgical group and one in the non-surgical group). In our study, whether patients received a surgical or non-surgical treatment approach did not influence good days during the first 91 days after registration. These findings should inform treatment decisions for patients hospitalised with malignant bowel obstruction. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute. For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Comparative effectiveness of trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for PTSD among veterans with comorbid substance use disorders: Protocol & rationale for a randomized clinical trial

BackgroundCo-occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) is common and concurrent treatment is recommended. Relatively little is known about which evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD are most effective for patients with varying substance use profiles. We aim to examine the comparative effectiveness of trauma-focused therapy (TFT) and non-trauma-focused therapy (NTFT) among Veterans with PTSD and SUD. TFT has been found to be effective among those with PTSD/SUD, though effects are smaller and rates of treatment non-completion are higher than in those without SUD. NTFTs suggested for the treatment of PTSD, such as Present Centered Therapy, (PCT) have not been examined among those with co-occurring SUD, despite lower rates of treatment dropout. We will also examine the comparative effectiveness of TFT and NTFT for patients with varying SUD severity, type of substances used, and patient treatment preference. Method420 Veterans with PTSD and SUD will be randomized in a prospective, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial at 14 Veterans Health Administration facilities. Participants will receive either TFT (Prolonged Exposure or Cognitive Processing Therapy) or NTFT (PCT) after enrolling in concurrent SUD treatment-as-usual. Assessments will occur at baseline, posttreatment, 3- and 6 -months posttreatment. Main outcomes are PTSD symptom severity and PTSD treatment dropout. Clinician, patient, and leadership stakeholder panels advise study activities, and a process evaluation will identify strategies to enhance the implementation of evidence-based PTSD treatments in SUD care settings. ConclusionsResults will provide critical information to guide clinicians when recommending PTSD treatments to patients with comorbid SUD.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04581434.

Using Mobile Integrated Health and telehealth to support transitions of care among patients with heart failure (MIGHTy-Heart): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

IntroductionNearly one-quarter of patients discharged from the hospital with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days, placing a significant burden on patients, families and health systems. The objective of...

Randomised comparative effectiveness trial of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after hiP and kneE Replacement (PEPPER): the PEPPER trial protocol

IntroductionMore than 1 million elective total hip and knee replacements are performed annually in the USA with 2% risk of clinical pulmonary embolism (PE), 0.1%–0.5% fatal PE, and over 1000...

What's in the Sauce? The Specific Benefits of Palliative Care for Parkinson's Disease

ContextIncreasing evidence demonstrates the benefits of palliative care among individuals with Parkinson's disease and related disorders (PDRD), but the critical components that contribute to therapeutic effects are not well understood. ObjectivesTo determine the specific items most responsive to a palliative care intervention in PDRD and identify key correlates of improvement in patient and care partner outcomes. MethodsThe main trial was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of outpatient integrated palliative care compared to standard care among participants with PDRD (NCT02533921), showing significantly higher patient QOL at six months and lower care partner burden at 12 months. We used longitudinal regression models to analyze changes in subdomains of patient QOL and care partner burden and Spearman correlations to evaluate key correlates of change scores in patient and care partner outcomes. We performed a secondary analysis of data from 210 patients and 175 care partners. ResultsCompared to controls, patients in the intervention reported greater improvement in perceptions of the “self as a whole” at six months (coeff = 0.22, P < 0.05) and care partners reported greater reduction in stress, anger, and loss of control at 12 months (coeff = -.40, -0.25, -0.31, P < 0.05). Positive change in numerous patient non-motor symptoms and grief correlated with improved patient QOL, reduced patient anxiety, and increased care partner spirituality. Alleviation of care partner anxiety and depression correlated with reduced care partner burden. ConclusionSpecific benefits of an integrated palliative approach in PDRD include improvement in patient holistic self-impressions, care partner self-efficacy, and non-motor symptoms.

Comparison of Teleintegrated Care and Telereferral Care for Treating Complex Psychiatric Disorders in Primary Care

Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings. To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics. This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months. Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology-enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral [PER]) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing. Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects. Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 2 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (β = 1.0; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.8; P = .28). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; TER: Cohen d = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (β = 2.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.7; P = .29). In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944.

Catalyzing the Translation of Patient-Centered Research Into United States Trauma Care Systems: A Case Example.

Background:The expedient translation of research findings into sustainable intervention procedures is a longstanding health care system priority. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has facilitated the development of “research done differently,” with a central tenet that key stakeholders can be productively engaged throughout the research process. Literature review revealed few examples of whether, as originally posited, PCORI’s innovative stakeholder-driven approach could catalyze the expedient translation of research results into practice.Objectives:This narrative review traces the historical development of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS/COT) policy guidance, facilitated by evidence supplied by the PCORI-funded studies evaluating the delivery of patient-centered care transitions. Key elements catalyzing the guidance are reviewed, including the sustained engagement of ACS/COT policy stakeholders who have the capacity to invoke system-level implementation strategies, such as regulatory mandates linked to verification site visits. Other key elements, including the encouragement of patient stakeholder voice in policy decisions and the incorporation of end-of-study policy summits in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial design, are discussed.Conclusions:Informed by comparative effectiveness trials, ACS/COT policy has expedited introduction of the patient-centered care construct into US trauma care systems. A comparative health care systems conceptual framework for transitional care which incorporates Research Lifecycle, pragmatic clinical trial and implementation science models is articulated. When combined with Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE), employed as a targeted implementation strategy, this approach may accelerate the sustainable delivery of high-quality patient-centered care transitions for US trauma care systems.

Improving transition from inpatient rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: Protocol for the BRITE pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common cause of long-term disability. Due to challenges that include inconsistent access to follow-up care, persons with TBI being discharged from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) are at risk for rehospitalization, poor reintegration into the community, family stress, and other unfavorable outcomes resulting from unmet needs. In a six-center randomized pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, the BRITE trial (Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Improving the Transition Experience, ClinicalTrials.govNCT03422276), we compare the effectiveness of two existing methods for transition from IRF to community living or long-term nursing care. The Rehabilitation Discharge Plan (RDP) includes patient/family education and referrals for continued care. The Rehabilitation Transition Plan (RTP) provides RDP plus individualized, manualized care management via phone or videoconference, for 6 months. Nine hundred patients will be randomized (1:1) to RDP or RTP, with caregivers also invited to participate and contribute caregiver-reported outcomes. Extensive stakeholder input, including active participation of persons with TBI and their families, has informed all aspects of trial design and implementation planning. We hypothesize that RTP will result in better patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (societal participation, quality of life, caregiver well-being) and more efficient use of healthcare resources at 6-months (primary outcome) and 12-months post-discharge, compared to RDP alone. Planned analyses will explore which participants benefit most from each transition model. With few exclusion criteria and other pragmatic features, the findings of this trial are expected to have a broad impact on improving transitions from inpatient TBI rehabilitation. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03422276

Findings and lessons learnt from early termination of a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of video consultations in home-based palliative care

BackgroundHealth systems need evidence about how best to deliver home-based palliative care (HBPC) to meet the growing needs of seriously ill patients. We hypothesised that a tech-supported model that aimed...

Psychiatrist and Psychologist Experiences with Telehealth and Remote Collaborative Care in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PurposeAvailability of mental health services is limited in the rural United States. Two promising models to reach patients with limited access to care are telehealth referral and collaborative care. The objective of this study was to assess telepsychiatrist‐ and telepsychologist‐level facilitators and barriers to satisfaction with and implementation of these 2 telehealth models in rural settings.MethodsFocus groups were held in 2019 using a semistructured interview guide. Participants were off‐site telepsychiatrists (N = 10) and telepsychologists (N = 4) for primary care clinics across 3 states (Washington, Michigan, and Arkansas) involved in a recent pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial. Qualitative analysis occurred inductively by 2 independent coders.FindingsParticipants were satisfied with the models partly owing to good patient rapport and expanding access to care. Teamwork was highlighted as a facilitator in collaborative care and was often related to work with care managers. However, participants described communication with primary care providers as a challenge, especially in the telehealth referral arm. Barriers centered on variability of logistical processes (eg, symptom monitoring, scheduling, electronic medical record processes, and credentialing) among sites. Staff turnover, variable clinic investment, and inadequacy of training were possible explanations for these barriers.ConclusionsParticipants described high motivation to provide team‐based, remote care for patients, though they experienced operational challenges. Centralized credentialing, scheduling, and record keeping are possible solutions. These findings are important because consulting psychiatrists and psychologists may play a leadership role in the dissemination of these models.

Supplemental Text Message Support With the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BackgroundThe evidence-based National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) is now widely disseminated, yet strategies to increase its effectiveness are needed, especially for underserved populations. The yearlong program promotes lifestyle changes for weight loss and can be offered in-person, online, via distance learning, or a combination of modalities. Less is known about which delivery features are optimal and may help address disparities in outcomes for subgroups. We previously demonstrated the efficacy of a stand-alone text messaging intervention based on the NDPP (SMS4PreDM) in a randomized controlled trial in a safety net health care system. Upon broader dissemination, we then showed that SMS4PreDM demonstrated high retention and modest weight loss at a relatively low cost, suggesting the potential to improve in-person NDPP delivery.ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare the effectiveness of in-person NDPP classes with and without supplementary SMS4PreDM on attendance and weight loss outcomes to determine whether text messaging can enhance in-person NDPP delivery for a safety net patient population.MethodsFrom 2015 to 2017, patients with diabetes risks were identified primarily from provider referrals and enrolled in NDPP classes, SMS4PreDM, or both per their preference and availability. Participants naturally formed three groups: in-person NDPP with SMS4PreDM (n=236), in-person NDPP alone (n=252), and SMS4PreDM alone (n=285). This analysis compares the first two groups to evaluate whether supplemental text messaging may improve in-person NDPP outcomes. Outcomes for SMS4PreDM-only participants were previously reported. NDPP classes followed standard delivery guidelines, including weekly-to-monthly classes over a year. SMS4PreDM delivery included messages promoting lifestyle change and modest weight loss, sent 6 days per week for 12 months. Differences in characteristics between intervention groups were assessed using chi-square and t tests. Differences in NDPP attendance and weight loss outcomes were analyzed with multivariable linear and logistic regressions.ResultsThe mean age was 50.4 years (SD 13.9). Out of a total of 488 participants, 76.2% (n=372) were female and 59.0% (n=288) were Hispanic. An additional 17.2% (n=84) were non-Hispanic white and 12.9% (n=63) were non-Hispanic black. A total of 48.4% (n=236) of participants elected to receive supplemental text message support in addition to NDPP classes. Participants who chose supplemental text message support were on average 5.7 (SD 1.2) years younger (P<.001) than the 252 participants who preferred in-person classes alone. Relatively more women and Hispanic individuals enrolled in the NDPP with supplemental text messages than in NDPP classes alone, 83.9% (n=198) vs 69.0% (n=174, P<.001) and 68.6% (n=162) vs 50.0% (n=126, P=.001), respectively. Attendance and weight loss outcomes were comparable between groups.ConclusionsDespite its appeal among priority populations, supplemental text messaging did not significantly increase attendance and weight loss for the in-person NDPP. Further research is needed to identify optimal strategies to improve the effectiveness of the NDPP.

642-P: Identifying Value Propositions to Engage Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Shared Medical Appointments

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) affects 12% of U.S. adults and is a major public health burden. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an effective strategy to deliver diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) alongside medical care, yet recruitment is a common challenge. Enhanced communication strategies have been recommended, while identifying specific messaging to engage patients with T2D remains needed. Methods: The Invested in Diabetes project is a cluster-randomized, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of two models of SMAs using an evidence-based DSMES curriculum. To aid recruitment at 22 primary care clinics, a group of patient, practice and research stakeholders used value proposition design strategies to develop tailored messaging on how SMAs can reduce pains and yield gains related to T2D. Patient stakeholders further refined messages to ensure patient-driven language. Here we describe value propositions for patients with newly diagnosed or uncontrolled T2D, diabetes distress, and comorbid conditions, plus concerned others. Results: General messaging emphasized how SMAs may help patients with T2D through expert education, addressing concerns, behavior change strategies, problem-solving, stress-coping skills, normalizing, and peer support. Messaging emphasized respect for autonomy (“you are your best health advocate”) coupled with available support (“you don’t have to go it alone”). For uncontrolled T2D, messages further conveyed opportunities to “finally take control” of T2D. For diabetes distress, messages also conveyed how SMAs may reduce feeling overwhelmed by T2D. Concerned others were encouraged to show support by telling patients about diabetes SMAs. Conclusions: Value proposition themes include how diabetes SMAs can improve T2D control and related stress, which may aid patient engagement. For clinics offering diabetes SMAs, messaging can be delivered by care team members and integrated into various recruitment activities. Disclosure N.D. Ritchie: None. A. Begum: None. J. Dailey-Vail: None. J. Rementer: None. R.A. Koren: None. S.A. Trujillo: None. P. Phimphasone-Brady: None. K.A. Cassidy: None. R. Wearner: None. J. Waxmonsky: None. B. Kwan: None. Funding Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (IHS-1609-36322)

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Onduo Virtual Diabetes Clinic Platform Evaluation: A Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial in Primary Care

Onduo Virtual Diabetes Clinic Platform Evaluation: A Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial in Primary Care

Does increased implementation support improve community clinics\u2019 guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

BackgroundDisseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs).MethodsThis pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs’ EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes.ResultsOutcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes.ConclusionsEfforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics’ ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Study to promote innovation in rural integrated telepsychiatry (SPIRIT): Rationale and design of a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of managing complex psychiatric disorders in rural primary care clinics

ObjectiveManaging complex psychiatric disorders like PTSD and bipolar disorder is challenging in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) delivering care to U.S residents living in underserved rural areas. This protocol paper describes SPIRIT, a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial designed to compare two approaches to managing PTSD and bipolar disorder in FQHCs. InterventionsTreatment comparators are: 1) Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care, which integrates consulting telepsychiatrists into primary care teams, and 2) Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral, where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists treat patients directly. MethodsBecause Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral is an adaptive intervention, a Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial design is used. Twenty-four FQHC clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists are participating in the trial. The sample is patients screening positive for PTSD and/or bipolar disorder who are not already engaged in pharmacotherapy with a mental health specialist. Intervention fidelity is measured but not controlled. Patient treatment engagement is measured but not required, and intent-to-treat analysis will be used. Survey questions measure treatment engagement and effectiveness. The Short-Form 12 Mental Health Component Summary (SF-12 MCS) is the primary outcome. ResultsA third (34%) of those enrolled (n = 1004) are racial/ethnic minorities, 81% are not fully employed, 68% are Medicaid enrollees, 7% are uninsured, and 62% live in poverty. Mental health related quality of life (SF-12 MCS) is 2.5 standard deviations below the national mean. DiscussionWe hypothesize that patients randomized to Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care will have better outcomes than those randomized to Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral because a higher proportion will engage in evidence-based treatment.