Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials Research Articles

Addressing the Evidence Gap in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Need for a Pragmatic Randomized Trial Platform.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) occurs less often than other stroke types but affects younger patients, imposing a disproportionately high burden of long-term disability. Although management advances have improved outcomes over time, relatively few aSAH treatments have been tested in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). One lesson learned from COVID-19 is that trial platforms can facilitate the efficient execution of multicenter RCTs even in complex diseases during challenging conditions. An aSAH trial platform with standardized eligibility criteria, randomization procedures, and end point definitions would enable the study of multiple targeted interventions in a perpetual manner, with treatments entering and leaving the platform based on predefined decision algorithms. An umbrella institutional review board protocol and clinical trial agreement would allow individual arms to be efficiently added as amendments rather than stand-alone protocols. Standardized case report forms using the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke common data elements and general protocol standardization across arms would create synergies for data management and monitoring. A Bayesian analysis framework would emphasize frequent interim looks to enable early termination of trial arms for futility, common controls, borrowing of information across arms, and adaptive designs. A protocol development committee would assist investigators and encourage pragmatic designs to maximize generalizability, reduce site burden, and execute trials efficiently and cost-effectively. Despite decades of steady clinical progress in the management of aSAH, poor patient outcomes remain common, and despite the increasing availability of RCT data in other fields, it remains difficult to perform RCTs to guide more effective care for aSAH. The development of a platform for pragmatic RCTs in aSAH would help close the evidence gap between aSAH and other stroke types and improve outcomes for this important disease with its disproportionate public health burden.

Contribution of Clinical Trial Event Data by Data Source

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) often use multiple data sources to examine clinical events, but the relative contribution of data sources to clinical end-point rates is understudied. To assess the contribution of data sources (electronic health records [EHRs], public/private insurance claims, and/or participant-reported data) to clinical end points among ADAPTABLE participants who had available data. The ADAPTABLE study was an open-label, pragmatic RCT from April 2016 through June 2019 conducted in research networks within clinical practice. Participants had existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and available data to analyze. The characteristics of patients by combinations of data source availability were compared to examine the contribution of each of the data sources to end-point ascertainment. Data for this prespecified analysis were examined from January 2022 to June 2023. Randomized exposure to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily. Number of events for the primary end point (composite of death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for stroke) that were contributed by EHR or claims data and then number of events contributed by each additional data source. Of 15 006 participants randomized with at least 1 other source of data available beyond participant-reported data, there were 8756 (58.3%) with participant-reported and EHR data; 4291 (28.6%) with participant-reported, EHR, and claims data; 1412 (9.4%) with EHR-only data; 262 (1.7%) with participant-reported and claims data; 202 (1.3%) with EHR and claims data; and 83 (0.6%) with claims-only data. Participants with EHR-only data were younger (median age, 63.7 years; IQR, 55.8-71.4) compared with the other groups (range, 65.6-71.9 years). Among participants with both EHR and claims data, with or without participant-reported data (n = 4493), for each outcome, most events (92%-100%) were identified in the EHR or in claims data. For all clinical end points, participant-reported data contributed less than 10% of events not otherwise available from claims or EHR data. In this analysis of a pragmatic RCT, claims and EHR data provided the most clinical end-point data when compared with participant-reported events. These findings provide a framework for collecting end points in pragmatic clinical trials. Further work is needed to understand the data source combinations that most effectively provide clinical end-point data in RCTs.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Effect of smoking-related COVID-19 risk messaging on smoking cessation in community smokers: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Observational and experimental studies have suggested that messaging on smoking-related COVID-19 risk may promote smoking abstinence, but evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is lacking. This was a pragmatic RCT in Hong Kong, China, to compare the effectiveness of communicating smoking-related COVID-19 risk with generic cessation support on abstinence. Both groups received brief cessation advice at baseline. The intervention group received messaging on smoking-related COVID-19 risk and cessation support via instant messaging for three months (16 messages in total), which highlighted the increased risk of severe COVID-19 and deaths, and potentially higher risk of viral exposure (e.g. due to mask removal) for smokers. The control group received generic text messaging support for three months (16 messages). The primary outcomes were biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 3 and 6 months. Intention to treat analyses was used. Between 13 June and 30 October 2020, 1166 participants were randomly assigned to an intervention (n=583) or control (n=583) group. By intention-to-treat, validated 7-day PPA did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups at three months (9.6% and 11.8%, relative risk, RR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.58-1.13, p=0.22) or six months (9.3% and 11.7%, RR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.57-1.11, p=0.18). A higher perceived severity of COVID-19 in smokers at baseline was associated with a greater validated 7-day PPA at six months, and a marginally significant intervention effect on changes in perceived severity from baseline through 6 months was found (p for group × time interaction = 0.08). Communicating smoking-related COVID-19 risk via instant messaging was not more effective in increasing smoking abstinence than generic cessation support. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04399967.

S-17-6: SGLT2 INHIBITION ON VASCULAR FUNCTION AND ATHEROSCLEROSIS: CLEARED OR YET?

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been recently recognized as one of foundational therapies in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including heart failure (HF), beyond the use in the diabetes care setting. In particular, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of HF-related events and cardiovascular death in a broad clinical manifestation of HF, including chronic and even acute HF, regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. On the other hand, whether treatment with SGLT2 inhibitor can reduce the risk of atherosclerotic CVDs is still uncertain. Moreover, its effects on vascular function and atherosclerosis remain also to be inconclusive. In this talk, we would like to review the effects of SGLT2 inhibition on vascular function and atherosclerosis, based on the recent insights observed in the pragmatic randomized clinical trials, and discuss its role in the cardiovascular care setting.

Has network meta-analysis resolved the controversies related to bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery?

There are discrepancies in the guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous antibiotics (IV) are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) demonstrated that the addition of OA reduced incisional surgical site infections (iSSIs) by more than 50%. We aimed to perform a NMA including only the highest quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in order to determine the ranking of different treatment strategies and assess these RCTs for methodological problems that may affect the conclusions of the NMAs. A NMA was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. RCTs of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate antibiotic cover and with at least 250 participants recruited, clear definition of endpoints and duration of follow-up extending beyond discharge from hospital were included. The search included Medline, Embase, Cochrane and SCOPUS databases. Primary outcomes were iSSI and anastomotic leak (AL). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v.15.1 using frequentist routines. Ten RCTs including 5107 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV (2218 patients), IV + OA (460 patients), MBP + IV (1405 patients), MBP + IV + OA (538 patients) and OA (486 patients). The likelihood of iSSI was significantly lower for IV + OA (rank 1) and MBP + IVA + OA (rank 2), reducing iSSIs by more than 50%. There were no differences between treatments for AL. Methodological issues included differences in definition, assessment and frequency of primary endpoint infections and the limited number of participants included in some treatment options. While this NMA supports the addition of OA to IV to reduce iSSI it also highlights unanswered questions and the need for well-designed pragmatic RCTs.

Practical steps to identifying the research risk of pragmatic trials.

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials that compare two or more purportedly "within the standard of care" interventions attempt to provide real-world evidence for policy and practice decisions. There is considerable debate regarding their research risk status, which in turn could lead to debates about appropriate consent requirements. Yet no practical guidance for identifying the research risks of pragmatic randomized clinical trials is available. We developed a practical, four-step process for identifying and evaluating the research risk of pragmatic trials that can be applied to those pragmatic randomized clinical trials that compare two or more "standard of care" or "accepted" interventions. Using a variety of examples of standard of care pragmatic randomized clinical trials (ranging from trials comparing: insurance coverage conditions, patient reminders for health screens, intensive care unit procedures, post-stroke interventions, and drugs for life-threatening conditions), we illustrate in a four-step process how any pragmatic randomized clinical trial purportedly comparing standard interventions can be evaluated for their research risks. Although determining the risk status of a standard of care pragmatic randomized clinical trial is only one necessary element in the ethical oversight of such pragmatic randomized clinical trials, it is a central element. Our four-step process of pragmatic randomized clinical trial risk determination provides a practical, transparent, and systematic approach with likely low risk of bias.

Combined therapy with inhaled glucocorticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists in patients with bronchial asthma: the problem of choice

Bronchial asthma remains one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases. The apparent heterogeneity of BA underlies the concept of phenotype-specific or patient-centered therapy. However, in real clinical practice, BA continues to be regarded as a rather homogeneous pathological condition and its treatment in the vast majority of cases retains an empirical approach, the basis of which are inhaled glucocorticosteroids, usually in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists. Since this group of drugs is very representative, the physician is faced with the question of choosing the optimal drug. The basis of evidence-based medicine is a hierarchical classification, where systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials are considered the highest level of evidence. Because randomized clinical trials are conducted in carefully selected highly selected patient populations, they have little relevance to patients encountered in everyday clinical practice. In contrast, pragmatic randomized clinical trials assess the clinical efficacy of the investigational agent in a large, unselected population in which patients with comorbidities are included. In this context, the Salford Lung Study (SLS) is of particular interest. It was conducted before the registration of a new combination drug containing the modern ICS fluticasone furoate and the long-acting beta2-agonist vilanterol. The SLS results indicated not only that the use of fluticasone furoate with vilanterol provides better control of BA compared to continued "conventional therapy" (ICS ± LABAs) in symptomatic patients, but also leads to a consistent improvement in the surrogate parameters of quality of life.

A Critical Review of the Study of Neuroprotective Diets to Reduce Cognitive Decline.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementias are now the seventh leading cause of death in the world and are projected to affect 115.4 million people by 2050. Delaying the onset of AD by just five years is estimated to reduce the cost and prevalence of the disease by half. There is no cure for AD nor any drug therapies to halt its progression once the disease begins. Lifestyle choices including diet are being seen as a viable complementary therapy to reduce cognitive decline, the hallmark of AD. Mediterranean, DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension), and MIND (Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay) diets have biological mechanisms supporting their potential neuroprotective benefits, but the findings of study outcomes about these benefits have been inconsistent. This paper analyzed five Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) (from 2000 to 2021) and 27 observational studies (from 2010 to 2021) focused on the link between cognitive health and the Mediterranean/DASH/MIND diets to identify gaps and challenges that could lead to inconsistent results. These include a lack of accuracy in assessing food intake, multiple dietary pattern scoring systems, a shifting metric among studies focused on the Mediterranean diet, a lack of standards in the tools used to assess cognitive decline, and studies that were underpowered or had follow-up periods too short to detect cognitive change. Insights from these gaps and challenges are summarized in recommendations for future RCTs, including both pragmatic and explanatory RCTs.

Real-world evidence vs EBM: what does real-world data add?

Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) offer the highest level of scientific evidence, they are unable to evaluate the impact of treatments in the routine clinical practice. The heterogeneity of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, as well as the complexity of treatments, explain the gap between the effect observed in RCTs and its impact in the real-world setting. As compared to conventional trials, pragmatic RCTs are conducted in a setting as similar as possible to that of clinical practice, but they are not always able to narrow this gap. For this reasons, methods aimed to produce evidence on the impact of healthcare pathways in the real-world (i.e., real-world evidence) are of growing interest. In particular, those based on the Electronic Healthcare Utilization (EHU), including administrative databases on the healthcare services provided to beneficiaries of the National Health System, are receiving increasing consideration from both the scientific community and healthcare decision-makers. In this article, we described characteristics and research areas where EHU databases may be particularly useful, along with strengths and limits of this approach. In conclusion, EHU data should not replace RCTs, but they represent a powerful tool for integrating RCTs and for supporting healthcare decision-makers.

Masking in Pragmatic Trials: Who, What, and When to Blind

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.

Understanding implementation fidelity in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in the nursing home setting:a mixed-methods examination

BackgroundThe Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is one of the first large pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to be conducted in U.S. nursing homes (N = 119 intervention and N = 241 control across two health-care systems). The trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a suite of videos to improve advance care planning (ACP) for nursing home patients. This report uses mixed methods to explore the optimal and suboptimal conditions necessary for implementation fidelity within pRCTs in nursing homes.MethodsPROVEN’s protocol required designated facility champions to offer an ACP video to long-stay patients every 6 months during the 18-month implementation period. Champions completed a video status report, stored within electronic medical records, each time a video was offered. Data from the report were used to derive each facility’s adherence rate (i.e., cumulative video offer). Qualitative interviews held after 15 months with champions were purposively sampled from facilities within the highest and lowest adherence rates (i.e., those in the top and bottom quintiles). Two researchers analyzed interview data thematically using a deductive approach based upon six domains of the revised Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF). Matrices were developed to compare coded narratives by domain across facility adherence status.ResultsIn total, 28 interviews involving 33 champions were analyzed. Different patterns were observed across high- versus low-adherence facilities for five CFIF domains. In low-adherence nursing homes, (1) there were limited implementation resources (Context), (2) there was often a perceived negative patient or family responsiveness to the program (Participant Responsiveness), and (3) champions were reticent in offering the videos (Recruitment). In high-adherence nursing homes, (1) there was more perceived patient and family willingness to engage in the program (Participant Responsiveness), (2) champions supplemented the video with ACP conversations (Quality of Delivery), (3) there were strategic approaches to recruitment (Recruitment), and (4) champions appreciated external facilitation (Strategies to Facilitate Implementation).ConclusionsCritical lessons for implementing pRCTs in nursing homes emerged from this report: (1) flexible fidelity is important (i.e., delivering core elements of an intervention while permitting the adaptation of non-core elements), (2) reciprocal facilitation is vital (i.e., early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in research design and, reciprocally, researchers’ and organizational leaders’ ongoing support of the implementation), and (3) organizational and champion readiness should be formally assessed early and throughout implementation to facilitate remediation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612688. Registered on 19 November 2015.

The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care

BackgroundResearch guidelines generally recognize vulnerable populations to include neonates with the aim of enhancing protections from harm. In practice, such guidance results in limiting participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Yet while medical care of neonates should be based on best research evidence to ensure that safe, efficacious treatment or procedures are used, this seldom happens in contemporary practice.DiscussionThe compelling need to generate information on effectiveness and safety of procedures and medications that are already in use during neonatal care has led to increase in calls for pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PCTs). This raises ethical concerns as to whether exclusion of the vulnerable populations from research participations constitutes harm. First, neonates are denied access to both potentially beneficial research outputs and an opportunity to generate data on how interventions or medications perform in diverse clinical settings and inform clinical decision-making. Secondly, risks and harms in PCTs may differ from traditional RCTs, and can be reduced by modifications in study designs. The latter may involve assessment of effectiveness of comparable medication, devices or practices (whose safety data is available), randomization at the group level rather than at the individual level, avoidance of invasive and innovative study procedures, reliance on locally available data on relevant patient outcomes, and employment of procedures that tend to meet the criteria of minimal risk for human subject research. Thirdly, informed consent procedures should be modified from those of traditional RCTs, as neonates in traditional RCTs may be vulnerable to different extents in PCTs. Lastly, regulatory and oversight procedures designed for traditional RCT settings need modification, as they may not be translatable, feasible, appropriate or even ethical to apply in PCTs.ConclusionThe principle of justice, commonly interpreted as preventing an inequitable burden of research, should also allow fair access to potential benefits from PCTs for neonates and other vulnerable populations. Under certain conditions, prospective randomized trials involving neonates should be ethically permissible to allow inclusion of neonates in research. This may require modification of the research design, consent procedures or regulations for research oversight.

Masking in Pragmatic Trials: Who, What, and When to Blind

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.

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials: best practices and statistical guidance

Randomized clinical trials often serve the purpose of assessing the efficacy and safety of a compound. By combining real-world evidence and randomization, pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PrCTs) can be used to inform treatment effectiveness and healthcare decisions. PrCTs, referring to studies where several pragmatic elements are used (eligibility, endpoints, follow-up, etc.), pose unique challenges (Loudon et al. in BMJ 350:h2147, 2015). From a literature review, we propose a definition of PrCT and discuss strategies to overcome some PrCT challenges. Use of alternative data collection approaches may lead to uncertainties, and absence of blinding could potentially lead to non-random missing data at study endpoints such that randomization is no longer protected by an intent to treat. Therefore, more complex randomization strategies may be needed to minimize bias. Additional data sources could be used to synthesize information and create a more accurate endpoint definition, which may require tools such as natural language processing. The statistician must become familiar with the challenges and strengths of PrCTs, ranging from design to analysis to interpretation, in order to transform data into evidence (Califf in Clin Trials 13:471–477, 2016).

Statins for Primary Prevention in Older Adults—Moving Toward Evidence‐Based Decision‐Making

To determine the efficacy and safety of statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in older adults, especially those aged 80 and older and with multimorbidity. The National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute convened A multidisciplinary expert panel from July 31 to August 1, 2017, to review existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and consider whether statin safety and efficacy data in persons aged 75 and older without ASCVD are sufficient; whether existing data can inform the feasibility, design, and implementation of future statin trials in older adults; and clinical trial options and designs to address knowledge gaps. This article summarizes the presentations and discussions at that workshop. There is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with concomitant frailty, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment; a lack of tools to assess ASCVD risk in those aged 80 and older; and a paucity of evidence of the effect of statins on outcomes of importance to older adults, such as statin-associated muscle symptoms, cognitive function, and incident diabetes mellitus. Prospective, traditional, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and pragmatic RCTs seem to be suitable options to address these critical knowledge gaps. Future trials have to consider greater representation of very old adults, women, underrepresented minorities, and individuals of differing health, cognitive, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Feasibility analyses from existing large healthcare networks confirm appropriate power for death and cardiovascular outcomes for future RCTs in this area. Existing data cannot address uncertainties about the benefits and harms of statins for primary ASCVD prevention in adults aged 75 and older, especially those with comorbidities, frailty, and cognitive impairment. Evidence from 1 or more RCTs could address these important knowledge gaps to inform person-centered decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2188-2196, 2018.

Assessment of Pragmatism in Recently Published Randomized Clinical Trials

This database study evaluates the labeling, justifications, and limitations of pragmatic randomized clinical trials published in 2016.

Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: re-defining 'real-world data' within the broader data universe.

Real-world data (RWD) has been defined as data generated outside of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Though RWD has received increasing attention from regulatory authorities and professional societies, dividing evidence into that derived from 'real-world' vs. 'non-real-world' sources provides only one element of a much larger framework for evidence evaluation. Evidence should be evaluated on the source of the data, the method of treatment allocation (whether any intervention being evaluated was assigned or simply observed as used in practice) and the context in which the evidence was generated (overall study design). Under this framework, RWD refers only to data source, and a study incorporates RWD when it primarily uses data collected for non-research purposes, such as insurance claims data or the electronic health record, regardless of study design. Separation of study design, data source, and context enables parallel evaluation of two critical elements: (i) whether a study can support claims of causal inference, which can be assured with a high degree of confidence only in studies where patients are assigned treatments by protocol; and (ii) whether the study population and clinical context mirror clinical practice, a strength of observational studies using data from clinical practice or administrative claims. In this review, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of observational and non-observational studies, and studies involving RWD and non-RWD, through the lens of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Observational studies employing RWD are useful for describing how oral anticoagulants are used in clinical practice, but generally cannot be used to make claims regarding comparative treatment effects. Questions regarding treatment effect generally are best answered through an RCT, and additional pragmatic RCTs are needed to compare different antithrombotic agents for the prevention of thrombotic events in AF.

Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: Lessons learned from the COMPASS study

BackgroundPragmatic randomized clinical trials are essential to determine the effectiveness of interventions in “real-world” clinical practice. These trials frequently use a cluster-randomized methodology, with randomization at the site level. Despite policymakers’ increased interest in supporting pragmatic randomized clinical trials, no studies to date have reported on the unique recruitment challenges faced by cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. We investigated key challenges and successful strategies for hospital recruitment in the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) study.MethodsThe COMPASS study is designed to compare the effectiveness of the COMPASS model versus usual care in improving functional outcomes, reducing the numbers of hospital readmissions, and reducing caregiver strain for patients discharged home after stroke or transient ischemic attack. This model integrates early supported discharge planning with transitional care management, including nurse-led follow-up phone calls after 2, 30, and 60 days and an in-person clinic visit at 7–14 days involving a functional assessment and neurological examination. We present descriptive statistics of the characteristics of successfully recruited hospitals compared with all eligible hospitals, reasons for non-participation, and effective recruitment strategies.ResultsWe successfully recruited 41 (43%) of 95 eligible North Carolina hospitals. Leading, non-exclusive reasons for non-participation included: insufficient staff or financial resources (n = 33, 61%), lack of health system support (n = 16, 30%), and lack of support of individual decision-makers (n = 11, 20%). Successful recruitment strategies included: building and nurturing relationships, engaging team members and community partners with a diverse skill mix, identifying gatekeepers, finding mutually beneficial solutions, having a central institutional review board, sharing published pilot data, and integrating contracts and review board administrators.ConclusionsAlthough we incorporated strategies based on the best available evidence at the outset of the study, hospital recruitment required three times as much time and considerably more staff than anticipated. To reach our goal, we tailored strategies to individuals, hospitals, and health systems. Successful recruitment of a sufficient number and representative mix of hospitals requires considerable preparation, planning, and flexibility. Strategies presented here may assist future trial organizers in implementing cluster-randomized pragmatic trials.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02588664. Registered on 23 October 2015.

Real-world data on paliperidone palmitate for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders: a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of 1-month paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) for the treatment of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in terms of outcomes reported in real-world evidence studies. A systematic review of real-world randomized and nonrandomized studies with PP1M was performed and is reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Comparative effectiveness data with oral antipsychotics indicate that PP1M has a lower likelihood of relapse-related events, including rehospitalization, and these differences are clinically relevant. A randomized, double-blind study showed that PP1M has no advantage over haloperidol decanoate in the time to treatment failure. Although there was a marked variability across studies, PP1M was not superior to other antipsychotics in terms of study completion rates. Pharmacoeconomic data show that, during a follow-up period of 12 months, the mean total healthcare cost was not significantly different in patients treated with PP1M compared with those receiving oral antipsychotics. The mean maximum prolactin levels were significantly higher with PP1M than with haloperidol decanoate; however, neither drug differs in the frequency of prolactin-related adverse events. Results on prolactin-related adverse events were inconsistent in two randomized comparisons with oral antipsychotics and were not reported in a randomized comparison with aripiprazole. There were no significant differences between haloperidol decanoate and PP1M in the severity of abnormal involuntary movements and parkinsonism, or in the incidence of tardive dyskinesia; however, patients treated with haloperidol decanoate showed greater worsening of akathisia and required treatment for parkinsonism and akathisia significantly more frequently than patients who received PP1M. In conclusion, real-world data that originate from both pragmatic randomized clinical trials and observational studies indicate that PP1M is superior to oral antipsychotics in delaying the time to relapse or treatment failure. Furthermore, the pharmacoeconomic data reviewed for this article suggest that the advantages of PP1M compared with oral antipsychotics are not associated with an increased total cost for healthcare providers.