Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials Research Articles

Patients\u2019 beliefs regarding informed consent for low-risk pragmatic trials

BackgroundThe requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents’ personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.ResultsOverall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsAs in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Could phase 3 medicine trials be tagged as pragmatic? A case study: The Salford COPD trial.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can be classified as explanatory or pragmatic. Currently, explanatory and pragmatic are considered to be the extremes of a continuum: Many trials have some features of both explanatory and pragmatic RCTs. The Salford Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease (COPD) trial was an open-label phase 3 RCT assessing an experimental product (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) vs usual care. The Salford investigators labelled it as "the world's first phase 3 pragmatic RCT" in COPD patients. The evaluation of the Salford trial by means of the PRECIS-2 tool, yielded a mix of both extremes (explanatory and pragmatic) with several of the 9 domains close to the explanatory extreme and few to the pragmatic one. A number of the features could not be considered as being minimal changes over usual clinical practice. Hence, it would be difficult to accept that the Salford COPD trial was a pragmatic RCT. In addition, all trial participants could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect. The scientific community needs to be rigorous enough when using certain terms related to RCT. It is clear that the Salford COPD trial had particular features-sharing some of explanatory phase 3 RCTs and some of pragmatic RCTs. This, however, is not enough to tag it as a "pragmatic" RCT providing "real-world" data. These words should not be used when referring to prelicensed RCT, unless they really describe how was the trial conducted and the type of data gathered-something that with the current clinical trial regulations will only occur in very rare circumstances.

Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review.

Individual informed consent from all participants is required for most randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, some exceptions-for example, emergency research-are widely accepted. The literature on various approaches to randomization without consent (RWOC) has never been systematically reviewed. Our goal was to provide a survey and narrative synthesis of published proposals for RWOC. We focused on proposals to randomize at least some participants in a study without first obtaining consent to randomization. This definition included studies that omitted informed consent entirely, omitted informed consent for selected patients (e.g., the control group), obtained informed consent to research but not to randomization, or only obtained informed consent to randomization after random assignment had already occurred. It omitted oral and staged consent processes that still obtain consent to randomization from all participants before randomization occurs. We identified ten different proposals for RWOC: two variants of cluster randomization, two variants of the Zelen design, consent to postponed information, two-stage randomized consent, cohort multiple RCT, emergency research, prompted optional randomization trials, and low-risk pragmatic RCTs without consent. Of all designs discussed here, only cluster randomized designs and emergency research are routinely used, with the justification that informed consent is infeasible in those settings. Other designs have raised concerns that they do not appropriately respect patient autonomy. Recent proposals have emphasized the importance for RWOC of demonstrating such respect through systematic patient engagement, transparency, and accountability, potentially in the context of learning health care systems.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials

Surgical interventions are complex, with multiple components that require consideration in trial reporting. This review examines the reporting of details of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the context of explanatory and pragmatic study designs. Systematic searches identified RCTs of surgical interventions published in 2010 and 2011. Included studies were categorized as predominantly explanatory or pragmatic. The extent of intervention details in the reports were compared with the CONSORT statement for reporting trials of non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT). CONSORT-NPT recommends reporting the descriptions of surgical interventions, whether they were standardized and adhered to (items 4a, 4b and 4c). Reporting of the context of intervention delivery (items 3 and 15) and operator expertise (item 15) were assessed. Of 4541 abstracts and 131 full-text articles, 80 were included (of which 39 were classified as predominantly pragmatic), reporting 160 interventions. Descriptions of 129 interventions (80.6 per cent) were provided. Standardization was mentioned for 47 (29.4 per cent) of the 160 interventions, and 22 articles (28 per cent) reported measurement of adherence to at least one aspect of the intervention. Seventy-one papers (89 per cent) provided some information about context. For one-third of interventions (55, 34.4 per cent), some data were provided regarding the expertise of personnel involved. Reporting standards were similar in trials classified as pragmatic or explanatory. The lack of detail in trial reports about surgical interventions creates difficulties in understanding which operations were actually evaluated. Methods for designing and reporting surgical interventions in RCTs, contributing to the quality of the overall study design, are required. This should allow better implementation of trial results into practice.

Integrative medicine for back and neck pain: Exploring cost-effectiveness alongside a randomized clinical pilot trial

IntroductionIntegrative medicine (IM), the integration of complementary therapies (CTs) and conventional care, is common despite a scarce evidence base of cost-effectiveness. This study explored the cost-effectiveness of IM from a healthcare perspective comparing conventional primary care to a comprehensive IM model in the management of patients with chronic non-specific back/neck pain. MethodsData on clinical management (planning and delivering IM), resource use (conventional care, CTs, prescription and non-prescription analgesics) and outcome effectiveness (SF-6D) were derived alongside a pragmatic randomized clinical pilot trial (n=80) with 16 weeks follow-up. Costs and effects, i.e. quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were estimated over different time periods and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Net monetary benefit and bootstrapping methods were used to address uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analyses. ResultsThe IM model, on average integrating 7 CT sessions with conventional primary care over 10 weeks, resulted in increased QALYs, somewhat higher cost of health care provision but a reduced cost of using health care resources, including less use of analgesics compared to conventional primary care. The costs/QALY ranged between €24,000 and 41,000. ConclusionGiven the threshold value of €50,000 per QALY gained, and a remaining effect of one year, it is indicated that IM might be cost-effective compared with conventional primary care. Future cost-effectiveness studies of IM should be carried out from a societal perspective and should be based on large scale pragmatic randomized clinical trials.