-
Trials Jun 2020Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.
METHODS
A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.
RESULTS
We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.
CONCLUSION
RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.
Topics: Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Prospective Studies; Registries; Research Design
PubMed: 32571382
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z -
BMJ Open Sep 2023Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England....
Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.
INTRODUCTION
Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN20579216.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Alabama; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Hypersensitivity; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Penicillins; Pilot Projects; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; State Medicine; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37666558
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072253 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Jan 2017Electronic health records (EHRs) provide opportunities to enhance patient care, embed performance measures in clinical practice, and facilitate clinical research.... (Review)
Review
Electronic health records (EHRs) provide opportunities to enhance patient care, embed performance measures in clinical practice, and facilitate clinical research. Concerns have been raised about the increasing recruitment challenges in trials, burdensome and obtrusive data collection, and uncertain generalizability of the results. Leveraging electronic health records to counterbalance these trends is an area of intense interest. The initial applications of electronic health records, as the primary data source is envisioned for observational studies, embedded pragmatic or post-marketing registry-based randomized studies, or comparative effectiveness studies. Advancing this approach to randomized clinical trials, electronic health records may potentially be used to assess study feasibility, to facilitate patient recruitment, and streamline data collection at baseline and follow-up. Ensuring data security and privacy, overcoming the challenges associated with linking diverse systems and maintaining infrastructure for repeat use of high quality data, are some of the challenges associated with using electronic health records in clinical research. Collaboration between academia, industry, regulatory bodies, policy makers, patients, and electronic health record vendors is critical for the greater use of electronic health records in clinical research. This manuscript identifies the key steps required to advance the role of electronic health records in cardiovascular clinical research.
Topics: Access to Information; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials as Topic; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Confidentiality; Data Accuracy; Data Mining; Electronic Health Records; Humans; Medical Record Linkage; Research Design; Systems Integration
PubMed: 27557678
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-016-1025-6 -
Clinical Trials (London, England) Oct 2015The need for high-quality evidence to support decision making about health and health care by patients, physicians, care providers, and policy-makers is well documented....
The need for high-quality evidence to support decision making about health and health care by patients, physicians, care providers, and policy-makers is well documented. However, serious shortcomings in evidence persist. Pragmatic clinical trials that use novel techniques including emerging information and communication technologies to explore important research questions rapidly and at a fraction of the cost incurred by more "traditional" research methods promise to help close this gap. Nevertheless, while pragmatic clinical trials can bridge clinical practice and research, they may also raise difficult ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, the authors briefly survey the current state of evidence that is available to inform clinical care and other health-related decisions and discuss the potential for pragmatic clinical trials to improve this state of affairs. They then propose a new working definition for pragmatic research that centers upon fitness for informing decisions about health and health care. Finally, they introduce a project, jointly undertaken by the National Institutes of Health Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), which addresses 11 key aspects of current systems for regulatory and ethical oversight of clinical research that pose challenges to conducting pragmatic clinical trials. In the series of articles commissioned on this topic published in this issue of Clinical Trials, each of these aspects is addressed in a dedicated article, with a special focus on the interplay between ethical and regulatory considerations and pragmatic clinical research aimed at informing "real-world" choices about health and health care.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Clinical Trials as Topic; Decision Making; Humans; National Institutes of Health (U.S.); Research Design; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States
PubMed: 26374676
DOI: 10.1177/1740774515598334 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine May 2015Research on interventions within the standard of care has enormous potential, yet it also raises several ethical and regulatory challenges. Perhaps the most important is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Research on interventions within the standard of care has enormous potential, yet it also raises several ethical and regulatory challenges. Perhaps the most important is determining what consent process is needed for these "pragmatic" clinical trials. Some argue that pragmatic clinical trials need to obtain in-depth research consent. This approach ensures that patients are informed, but may introduce substantial selection bias and disruption of clinical care. Others argue that trials limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. While this approach avoids the problems with in-depth consent, it results in patients not knowing whether they are in research. The present manuscript proposes a way to avoid both sets of concerns. It argues that consent for research needs to supplement appropriate consent for standard care only to the extent that the research differs from standard care. Hence, pragmatic trials designed to mirror clinical care can obtain consent with only minimal additions to consent for standard care. This conclusion suggests that it may be possible for many pragmatic trials to obtain consent that is ethically appropriate, satisfies research regulations, and does not introduce substantial selection bias or clinical disruption.
Topics: Female; Humans; Informed Consent; Male; Needs Assessment; Patient Selection; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 25586870
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3169-2 -
Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.) 2022Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges...
Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges that limit their applicability in real-world settings. As a consequence, pragmatic trials are increasingly viewed as a research design that overcomes some of these barriers with the potential to produce data that are more reproducible. Although pragmatic methodology in long-term care is receiving increasing attention as an approach to improve successful dissemination and implementation, pragmatic trials present complexities of their own. To address these complexities and related issues, experts with experience conducting pragmatic trials, developing nursing home policy, participating in advocacy efforts, and providing clinical care in long-term care settings participated in a virtual consensus conference funded by the National Institute on Aging in Spring 2021. Participants recommended 4 cross-cutting principles key to dissemination and implementation of pragmatic trial interventions: (1) engage stakeholders, (2) ensure diversity and inclusion, (3) assess organizational strain and readiness, and (4) learn from adaptations. Specifically related to implementation, participants provided 2 recommendations: (1) integrate interventions into existing workflows and (2) maintain agility and responsiveness. Finally, participants had 3 recommendations specific to dissemination: (1) package the message for the audience, (2) engage diverse audiences, and (3) apply dissemination and diffusion tools. Participants emphasized that implementation processes must be grounded in the perspectives of the people who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the intervention once it is proven to be effective. In addition, messaging must speak to long-term care staff and all others who have a stake in its outcomes. Although our understanding of dissemination and implementation strategies remains underdeveloped, this article is designed to guide long-term care researchers and community providers who are increasingly aware of the need for pragmatism in disseminating and implementing evidence-based care interventions.
Topics: Humans; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35219533
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2022.02.006 -
Contemporary Clinical Trials Feb 2023The GetReal Trial Tool is a decision support tool to assess the impact of design choices on generalizability of clinical trials to routine clinical practice, while...
BACKGROUND
The GetReal Trial Tool is a decision support tool to assess the impact of design choices on generalizability of clinical trials to routine clinical practice, while taking into account the risk of bias, precision, acceptability and operational feasibility. This study describes the validation of the GetReal Trial Tool.
METHODS
Twelve experts took part in the GetReal Trial tool validation using the protocols of 6 trials conducted with pragmatic elements. The tool entails 7 domains with a total of 43 questions. A pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) using random effects model was estimated using Open Meta (analyst) software. The possible operational challenges were collated and discussed with the trialists that conducted the trials.
RESULTS
Agreement in the design choices made for the trial protocols was >50% for all the trials and all teams reached consensus during discussion. The pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) was 0.236 (0.154-0.318). The GetReal Trial tool highlighted several operational challenges, of which almost half had been experienced previously by the trialists. Out of 25 additional operational challenges mentioned by the trialists, 76% were already highlighted by the tool. The tool was considered helpful to optimize trials right from the design stage.
CONCLUSION
The GetReal Trial Tool helps to scrutinize the choice of study design in the light of Real World Evidence generation. The tool identifies most of the operational challenges experienced by trialists to date. The tool serves the intended purpose of facilitating discussion and understanding more pragmatic design choices and their implications.
Topics: Humans; Research Design; Clinical Trials as Topic; Decision Support Techniques
PubMed: 36529438
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.107054 -
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 -
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