-
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 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2018Almost half of recent pediatric trials failed to achieve labeling indications, in large part because of inadequate study design. Therefore, innovative study methods are... (Review)
Review
Almost half of recent pediatric trials failed to achieve labeling indications, in large part because of inadequate study design. Therefore, innovative study methods are crucial to optimizing trial design while also reducing the potential harms inherent with drug investigation. Several methods exist to optimize the amount of pharmacokinetic data collected from the smallest possible volume and with the fewest number of procedures, including the use of opportunistic and sparse sampling, alternative and noninvasive matrices, and microvolume assays. In addition, large research networks using master protocols promote collaboration, reduce regulatory burden, and increase trial efficiency for both early- and late-phase trials. Large pragmatic trials that leverage electronic health records can capitalize on central management strategies to reduce costs, enroll patients with rare diseases on a large scale, and augment study generalizability. Further, trial efficiency and safety can be optimized through Bayesian adaptive techniques that permit planned protocol changes based on analyses of prior and accumulated data. In addition to these trial design features, advances in modeling and simulation have paved the way for systems-based and physiologically based models that individualize pediatric dosing recommendations and support drug approval. Last, given the low prevalence of many pediatric diseases, collecting deidentified genetic and clinical data on a large scale is a potentially transformative way to augment clinical pharmacology research in children.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Infant; Models, Biological; Pharmacology, Clinical; Research Design
PubMed: 30248192
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.1053 -
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Dec 2023Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally... (Review)
Review
Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the preferred method for determining the effects of nutritional interventions on health outcomes. Nevertheless, obtaining a holistic understanding of intervention efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings is stymied by inherent constraints of efficacy RCTs. These limitations are further compounded by the complexity of nutritional interventions and the intricacies of the clinical context. Herein, we explore the advantages and limitations of alternative study designs (e.g., adaptive and pragmatic trials), which can be incorporated into RCTs to optimize the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in clinical nutrition research. Efficacy RCTs often lack external validity due to their fixed design and restrictive eligibility criteria, leading to efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Adaptive trials improve the evaluation of nutritional intervention efficacy through planned study modifications, such as recalculating sample sizes or discontinuing a study arm. Pragmatic trials are embedded within clinical practice or conducted in settings that resemble standard of care, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often rely on patient-oriented primary outcomes, acquire outcome data from electronic health records, and employ broader eligibility criteria. Consequently, adaptive and pragmatic trials facilitate the prompt implementation of evidence-based nutritional recommendations into clinical practice. Recognizing the limitations of efficacy RCTs and the potential advantages of alternative trial designs is essential for bridging efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Ultimately, this awareness will lead to a greater number of patients benefiting from evidence-based nutritional recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Nutritional Status; Research Design; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Adaptive Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37715007
DOI: 10.1038/s41430-023-01330-7 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Jan 2020Health-related information is increasingly being collected and stored digitally. These data, either structured or unstructured, are becoming the ubiquitous assets that... (Review)
Review
Health-related information is increasingly being collected and stored digitally. These data, either structured or unstructured, are becoming the ubiquitous assets that might enable us to comprehensively map out a patient's health journey from an asymptomatic state of wellness to disease onset and its trajectory. These new data could provide rich real-world evidence for better clinical care and research, if they can be accessed, linked and analyzed-all of which are possible. In this review, these opportunities will be explored through a case vignette of a patient with OA, followed by discussion on how this digitalized real-world evidence could best be utilized, as well as the challenges of data access, quality and maintaining public trust.
Topics: Humans; Medical Records Systems, Computerized; Mobile Applications; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 31834405
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez068 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Sep 2021We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.
RESULTS
4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.
CONCLUSION
There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.
Topics: Abstracting and Indexing; Humans; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Registries; Research Design
PubMed: 33789151
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.021 -
American Journal of Kidney Diseases :... Jun 2021Hyperphosphatemia is a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes in patients with kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis. Opinion-based clinical practice guidelines...
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE
Hyperphosphatemia is a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes in patients with kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis. Opinion-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of phosphate binders and dietary phosphate restriction to lower serum phosphate levels toward the normal range in patients receiving maintenance dialysis, but the benefits of these approaches and the optimal serum phosphate target have not been tested in randomized trials. It is also unknown if aggressive treatment that achieves unnecessarily low serum phosphate levels worsens outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN
Multicenter, pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS
HiLo will randomize 80-120 dialysis facilities operated by DaVita Inc and the University of Utah to enroll 4,400 patients undergoing 3-times-weekly, in-center hemodialysis.
INTERVENTION
Phosphate binder prescriptions and dietary recommendations to achieve the "Hi" serum phosphate target (≥6.5 mg/dL) or the "Lo" serum phosphate target (<5.5 mg/dL).
OUTCOMES
Primary outcome: Hierarchical composite outcome of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization. Main secondary outcomes: Individual components of the primary outcome.
RESULTS
The trial is currently enrolling.
LIMITATIONS
HiLo will not adjudicate causes of hospitalizations or mortality and does not protocolize use of specific phosphate binder classes.
CONCLUSIONS
HiLo aims to address an important clinical question while more generally advancing methods for pragmatic clinical trials in nephrology by introducing multiple innovative features including stakeholder engagement in the study design, liberal eligibility criteria, use of electronic informed consent, engagement of dietitians to implement the interventions in real-world practice, leveraging electronic health records to eliminate dedicated study visits, remote monitoring of serum phosphate separation between trial arms, and use of a novel hierarchical composite outcome.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT04095039.
Topics: Humans; Hyperphosphatemia; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Phosphates; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 33279558
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.10.008 -
Clinical Trials (London, England) Feb 2018With increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We...
BACKGROUND
With increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We describe one such design, appropriate for unmasked pragmatic clinical trials in which the control arm receives usual care, called "Trials within Cohorts" that is increasingly used in various countries because of its efficiency in recruitment, advantages in reducing subject burden, and ability to better mimic real-world consent processes.
METHODS
Descriptive, ethical, and US regulatory analysis of the Trials within Cohorts design.
RESULTS
Trials within Cohorts design involves, after recruitment into a cohort, randomization of eligible subjects, followed by an asymmetric treatment of the two arms: those selected for the experimental arm provide informed consent for the intervention trial, while the data from the control arm are used based on prior broad permission. Thus, unlike the traditional Zelen post-randomization consent design, the cohort participants are informed about future research within the cohort; however, the extent of this disclosure currently varies among studies. Thus, ethical analysis is provided for two types of situations: when the pre-randomization disclosure and consent regarding the embedded trials are fairly explicit and detailed versus when they consist of only general statements about future data use. These differing ethical situations could have implications for how ethics review committees apply US research rules regarding waivers and alterations of informed consent.
CONCLUSION
Trials within Cohorts is a promising new pragmatic randomized controlled trial design that is being increasingly used in various countries. Although the asymmetric consent procedures for the experimental versus control arm subjects can initially raise ethical concerns, it is ethically superior to previous post-randomization consent designs and can have important advantages over traditional trial designs.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Disclosure; Humans; Informed Consent; Random Allocation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; United States
PubMed: 29224380
DOI: 10.1177/1740774517746620 -
PLoS Medicine Feb 2022Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered. Engagement of patients and members of the public in selecting the primary trial outcome and determining the target difference can better ensure that the trial is designed to inform the decisions of those who ultimately stand to benefit. However, to the best of our knowledge, the use and reporting of PROs and patient and public engagement in pragmatic trials have not been described. The objectives of this study were to review a sample of pragmatic trials to describe (1) the prevalence of reporting patient and public engagement; (2) the prevalence and types of PROs used; (3) how its use varies across trial characteristics; and (4) how sample sizes and target differences are determined for trials with primary PROs.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
This was a methodological review of primary reports of pragmatic trials. We used a published electronic search filter in MEDLINE to identify pragmatic trials, published in English between January 1, 2014 and April 3, 2019; we identified the subset that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Trial descriptors were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov; information about PROs and sample size calculations were extracted from the manuscript. Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between trial characteristics and use of PROs. Among 4,337 identified primary trial reports, 1,988 were registered in CT.gov, of which 415 were explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Use of patient and public engagement was identified in 39 (9.4%). PROs were measured in 235 (56.6%): 144 (34.7%) used PROs as primary outcomes and 91 (21.9%) as only secondary outcomes. Primary PROs were symptoms (64; 44%), health behaviors (36; 25.0%), quality of life (17; 11.8%), functional status (16; 11.1%), and patient experience (10; 6.9%). Trial characteristics with lower prevalence of use of PROs included being conducted exclusively in children or adults over age 65 years, cluster randomization, recruitment in low- and middle-income countries, and primary purpose of prevention; trials conducted in Europe had the highest prevalence of PROs. For the 144 trials with a primary PRO, 117 (81.3%) reported a sample size calculation for that outcome; of these, 71 (60.7%) justified the choice of target difference, most commonly, using estimates from pilot studies (31; 26.5%), standardized effect sizes (20; 17.1%), or evidence reviews (16; 13.7%); patient or stakeholder opinions were used to justify the target difference in 8 (6.8%). Limitations of this study are the need for trials to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, which may have reduced generalizability, and extracting information only from the primary trial report.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we observed that pragmatic trials rarely report patient and public engagement and do not commonly use PROs as primary outcomes. When provided, target differences are often not justified and rarely informed by patients and stakeholders. Research funders, scientific journals, and institutions should support trialists to incorporate patient engagement to fulfill the mandate of pragmatic trials to be patient centered.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Databases, Factual; Humans; Patient Participation; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35134080
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003896 -
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience :... Jan 2021The goal of precision medicine (individually tailored treatments) is not being achieved for neurobehavioural conditions such as psychiatric disorders. Traditional... (Review)
Review
The goal of precision medicine (individually tailored treatments) is not being achieved for neurobehavioural conditions such as psychiatric disorders. Traditional randomized clinical trial methods are insufficient for advancing precision medicine because of the dynamic complexity of these conditions. We present a pragmatic solution: the precision clinical trial framework, encompassing methods for individually tailored treatments. This framework includes the following: (1) treatment-targeted enrichment, which involves measuring patients' response after a brief bout of an intervention, and then randomizing patients to a full course of treatment, using the acute response to predict long-term outcomes; (2) adaptive treatments, which involve adjusting treatment parameters during the trial to individually optimize the treatment; and (3) precise measurement, which involves measuring predictor and outcome variables with high accuracy and reliability using techniques such as ecological momentary assessment. This review summarizes precision clinical trials and provides a research agenda, including new biomarkers such as precision neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation-electroencephalogram digital phenotyping and advances in statistical and machine-learning models. Validation of these approaches - and then widespread incorporation of the precision clinical trial framework - could help achieve the vision of precision medicine for neurobehavioural conditions.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nervous System Diseases; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Precision Medicine; Research Design
PubMed: 33206039
DOI: 10.1503/jpn.200042