-
Contemporary Clinical Trials Aug 2022Home-based testing for COVID-19 has potential to reduce existing health care disparities among underserved populations in the United States. However, implementation of...
BACKGROUND
Home-based testing for COVID-19 has potential to reduce existing health care disparities among underserved populations in the United States. However, implementation of home-based tests in these communities may face significant barriers. This study evaluates the acceptability, feasibility, and success of home-based testing and the potential added benefit of active support from trusted community health workers for Native Americans and Hispanic/Latino adults living in rural Montana and Washington states.
METHODS/DESIGN
The academic-community research team designed the trial to be responsive to community needs for understanding barriers and supports to home-based COVID-19 testing. The "Protecting Our Community" study is a two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial in which a total of 400 participants are randomized to active or passive arms. Participants of both study arms receive a commercially available home collection COVID-19 test kit, which is completed by mailing a self-collected nasal swab to a central laboratory. The primary study outcome is return of the kit to the central lab within 14 days. The cultural, social, behavioral, and economic barriers to home-based COVID-19 testing are also assessed by qualitative research methods. A survey and semi-structured interviews are conducted after the trial to evaluate perceptions and experience of home-based testing.
DISCUSSION
Implementing home-based testing in underserved populations, including among Native American and Hispanic/Latino communities, may require additional support to be successful. The Protecting Our Community trial examines the effect of trusted community health workers on use of home-based testing, which may be adaptable for community-driven models of home-based testing in other underserved populations.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Hispanic or Latino; Humans; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; American Indian or Alaska Native
PubMed: 35691487
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106820 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2022Pragmatic trials aim to generate evidence to directly inform patient, caregiver and health-system manager policies and decisions. Heterogeneity in patient...
BACKGROUND
Pragmatic trials aim to generate evidence to directly inform patient, caregiver and health-system manager policies and decisions. Heterogeneity in patient characteristics contributes to heterogeneity in their response to the intervention. However, there are many other sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Based on the expertise and judgements of the authors, we identify different sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, which translate into heterogeneity in patient responses-some we consider as desirable and some as undesirable. For each of them, we discuss and, using real-world trial examples, illustrate how heterogeneity should be managed over the whole course of the trial.
MAIN TEXT
Heterogeneity in centres and patients should be welcomed rather than limited. Interventions can be flexible or tailored and control interventions are expected to reflect usual care, avoiding use of a placebo. Co-interventions should be allowed; adherence should not be enforced. All these elements introduce heterogeneity in interventions (experimental or control), which has to be welcomed because it mimics reality. Outcomes should be objective and possibly routinely collected; standardised assessment, blinding and adjudication should be avoided as much as possible because this is not how assessment would be done outside a trial setting. The statistical analysis strategy must be guided by the objective to inform decision-making, thus favouring the intention-to-treat principle. Pragmatic trials should consider including process analyses to inform an understanding of the trial results. Needed data to conduct these analyses should be collected unobtrusively. Finally, ethical principles must be respected, even though this may seem to conflict with goals of pragmatism; consent procedures could be incorporated in the flow of care.
Topics: Humans; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 36303153
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02569-w -
Circulation Mar 2016Randomized, clinical trials are commonly regarded as the highest level of evidence to support clinical decisions. Good Clinical Practice guidelines have been constructed... (Review)
Review
Randomized, clinical trials are commonly regarded as the highest level of evidence to support clinical decisions. Good Clinical Practice guidelines have been constructed to provide an ethical and scientific quality standard for trials that involve human subjects in a manner aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki. Originally designed to provide a unified standard of trial data to support submission to regulatory authorities, the principles may also be applied to other studies of human subjects. Although the application of Good Clinical Practice principles generally led to improvements in the quality and consistency of trial operations, these principles have also contributed to increasing trial complexity and costs. Alternatively, the growing availability of electronic health record data has facilitated the possibility for streamlined pragmatic clinical trials. The central tenets of Good Clinical Practice and pragmatic clinical trials represent potential tensions in trial design (stringent quality and highly efficient operations). In the present article, we highlight potential areas of discordance between Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of pragmatic clinical trials and suggest strategies to streamline study conduct in an ethical manner to optimally perform clinical trials in the electronic age.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 26927005
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019902 -
Trials Dec 2019All clinical trial investigators have ethical and regulatory obligations to monitor participant safety and trial integrity. Specific procedures for meeting these...
BACKGROUND
All clinical trial investigators have ethical and regulatory obligations to monitor participant safety and trial integrity. Specific procedures for meeting these obligations, however, may differ substantially between pragmatic trials and traditional explanatory clinical trials.
METHODS/RESULTS
Appropriate monitoring of clinical trials typically includes assessing rate of recruitment or enrollment; monitoring safe and effective delivery of study treatments; assuring that study staff act to minimize risks; monitoring quality and timeliness of study data; and considering interim analyses for early detection of benefit, harm, or futility. Each of these responsibilities applies to pragmatic clinical trials. Just as design of pragmatic trials typically involves specific and necessary departures from methods of explanatory clinical trials, appropriate monitoring of pragmatic trials typically requires specific departures from monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. We discuss how specific aspects of pragmatic trial design and operations influence selection of monitoring procedures and illustrate those choices using examples from three ongoing pragmatic trials conducted by the Mental Health Research Network.
CONCLUSIONS
Pragmatic trial investigators should not routinely adopt monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. Instead, investigators should consider core principles of trial monitoring and design monitoring procedures appropriate for each pragmatic trial.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Data Accuracy; Humans; Middle Aged; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Research Design; Young Adult
PubMed: 31815644
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3869-3 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Aug 2023Clinical trials have been the bedrock of research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medical, surgical, or other interventions. Traditional "explanatory"... (Review)
Review
Clinical trials have been the bedrock of research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medical, surgical, or other interventions. Traditional "explanatory" clinical trials have aimed to explain a biological cause (new treatment) and effect (patient outcome) while controlling for many factors that might impact the evaluation, such as restricted eligibility criteria, frequent follow-up visits, and multiple clinical and laboratory measures. Despite the benefits of a well-controlled clinical trial, compromises have been made that can limit who might benefit from a new intervention, can increase complexity of the conduct of a trial, or that lead to excessively long durations of trials. An alternative approach to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention is based on "pragmatic" clinical trials, which consider how an intervention affects a patient's condition in the real world, accounting for how to optimize an intervention within the operations of busy and diverse clinical practices. Although we describe explanatory and pragmatic trial designs as separate approaches, there is a continuum of approaches that intersect. Some key points are the need to maintain scientific rigor, increase efficiency of clinical trials operations, ensure that trial results can be generalized to a broad spectrum of patients, and balance the needs of real-world clinical care. Pragmatic trials can leverage technology and telecommunication strategies of decentralized trials to further reach underrepresented and underserved patients to close the health disparity gaps.
Topics: Humans; Research Design; Time Factors; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37536808
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.04.013 -
PloS One 2022Child and family social workers in the UK work closely with other agencies including schools and the police, and typically they are based in local authority offices....
BACKGROUND
Child and family social workers in the UK work closely with other agencies including schools and the police, and typically they are based in local authority offices. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of placing social workers in schools (SWIS) on the need for social care interventions. SWIS was piloted in three local authorities in 2018-2020, and findings from a feasibility study of the pilots suggests SWIS may operate through three key pathways: (1) by enhancing schools' response to safeguarding issues, (2) through increased collaboration between social workers, school staff, and parents, and (3) by improving relationships between social workers and young people.
METHODS
The study is a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial building on three feasibility studies which found SWIS to be promising. Social workers will work within secondary schools across local authorities in England. 280 mainstream secondary schools will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to SWIS or a comparison arm, which will be schools that continue as normal, without a social worker. The primary outcome will be the rate of Child Protection (Section 47) enquiries. Secondary outcomes will comprise rate of referrals to children's social care, rate of Child in Need (Section 17) assessments, days spent in care, and educational attendance and attainment. The study also includes an economic evaluation, and an implementation and process evaluation. Social care outcomes will be measured in July 2022, and educational outcomes will be measured in July 2023. Days in care will be measured at both time points.
DISCUSSION
Findings will explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SWIS on the need for social care interventions. A final report will be published in January 2024.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study was registered retrospectively with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry on 13.11.2020 (ISRCTN90922032).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Parents; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Schools; Social Work
PubMed: 35679281
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265354 -
Neurology Apr 2016We aimed to provide recommendations for addressing comorbidity in clinical trial design and conduct in multiple sclerosis (MS).
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to provide recommendations for addressing comorbidity in clinical trial design and conduct in multiple sclerosis (MS).
METHODS
We held an international workshop, informed by a systematic review of the incidence and prevalence of comorbidity in MS and an international survey about research priorities for studying comorbidity including their relation to clinical trials in MS.
RESULTS
We recommend establishing age- and sex-specific incidence estimates for comorbidities in the MS population, including those that commonly raise concern in clinical trials of immunomodulatory agents; shifting phase III clinical trials of new therapies from explanatory to more pragmatic trials; describing comorbidity status of the enrolled population in publications reporting clinical trials; evaluating treatment response, tolerability, and safety in clinical trials according to comorbidity status; and considering comorbidity status in the design of pharmacovigilance strategies.
CONCLUSION
Our recommendations will help address knowledge gaps regarding comorbidity that interfere with the ability to interpret safety in monitored trials and will enhance the generalizability of findings from clinical trials to "real world" settings where the MS population commonly has comorbid conditions.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Comorbidity; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 26888986
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002471 -
Anesthesiology Jan 2020Large randomized trials provide the highest level of clinical evidence. However, enrolling large numbers of randomized patients across numerous study sites is expensive... (Review)
Review
Large randomized trials provide the highest level of clinical evidence. However, enrolling large numbers of randomized patients across numerous study sites is expensive and often takes years. There will never be enough conventional clinical trials to address the important questions in medicine. Efficient alternatives to conventional randomized trials that preserve protections against bias and confounding are thus of considerable interest. A common feature of novel trial designs is that they are pragmatic and facilitate enrollment of large numbers of patients at modest cost. This article presents trial designs including cluster designs, real-time automated enrollment, and practitioner-preference approaches. Then various adaptive designs that improve trial efficiency are presented. And finally, the article discusses the advantages of embedding randomized trials within registries.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Research Design
PubMed: 31809323
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002989 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aug 2019The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the contemporary barriers responsible for this fall in accrual. In this article, we review the successes and challenges our program has faced.
METHODS
The REaCT program was created to improve care and outcomes for cancer patients through surveys of patients and healthcare providers, systematic reviews, economic evaluations, and the performance of pragmatic randomized trials with patient-centered outcomes. Likely, the greatest difference to conventional trial methodologies has been our widespread use of the integrated consent model (ICM) incorporating oral consent.
RESULTS
Between 2014 and 2018, the program has recruited over 2000 patients to 15 randomized studies at 11 Canadian cancer centers. The REaCT program has completed and published five patient surveys, six healthcare provider surveys, ten systematic reviews, performed four economic evaluations, opened 15 clinical trials comparing standard of care interventions (two surgical, two adjuvant chemotherapy, five adjuvant supportive care, one radiology, two vascular devices, two palliative supportive care, and one molecular diagnostics). Patient surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the ICM.
CONCLUSION
The REaCT program was developed to tackle important practice questions that will better guide optimal practice and to increase the availability of pragmatic clinical trials. While many challenges remain, future strategies will involve including more study sites and efforts to integrate novel information technology strategies.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Health Personnel; Humans; Patient Participation; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Failure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31127468
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05274-0 -
The British Journal of Surgery Aug 2015Surgical interventions are complex, with multiple components that require consideration in trial reporting. This review examines the reporting of details of surgical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS
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.
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
Topics: Guideline Adherence; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Research Report; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 26041565
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9808