-
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) Apr 2021Little is known about the predictors of response to obesity interventions.
OBJECTIVE
Little is known about the predictors of response to obesity interventions.
METHODS
In 450 participants with obesity, body composition, resting energy expenditure, satiety, satiation, eating behavior, affect, and physical activity were measured by validated studies and questionnaires. These variables were used to classify obesity phenotypes. Subsequently, in a 12-month, pragmatic, real-world trial performed in a weight management center, 312 patients were randomly assigned to phenotype-guided treatment or non-phenotype-guided treatment with antiobesity medications: phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, bupropion/naltrexone, lorcaserin, and liraglutide. The primary outcome was weight loss at 12 months.
RESULTS
Four phenotypes of obesity were identified in 383 of 450 participants (85%): hungry brain (abnormal satiation), emotional hunger (hedonic eating), hungry gut (abnormal satiety), and slow burn (decreased metabolic rate). In 15% of participants, no phenotype was identified. Two or more phenotypes were identified in 27% of patients. In the pragmatic clinical trial, the phenotype-guided approach was associated with 1.75-fold greater weight loss after 12 months with mean weight loss of 15.9% compared with 9.0% in the non-phenotype-guided group (difference -6.9% [95% CI -9.4% to -4.5%], P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients who lost >10% at 12 months was 79% in the phenotype-guided group compared with 34% with non-phenotype-guided treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS
Biological and behavioral phenotypes elucidate human obesity heterogeneity and can be targeted pharmacologically to enhance weight loss.
Topics: Anti-Obesity Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Male; Obesity; Precision Medicine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33759389
DOI: 10.1002/oby.23120 -
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Oct 2020There is a need to develop hybrid trial methodology combining the best parts of traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational study designs to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
There is a need to develop hybrid trial methodology combining the best parts of traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational study designs to produce real-world evidence (RWE) that provides adequate scientific evidence for regulatory decision-making.
METHODS
This review explores how hybrid study designs that include features of RCTs and studies with real-world data (RWD) can combine the advantages of both to generate RWE that is fit for regulatory purposes.
RESULTS
Some hybrid designs include randomization and use pragmatic outcomes; other designs use single-arm trial data supplemented with external comparators derived from RWD or leverage novel data collection approaches to capture long-term outcomes in a real-world setting. Some of these approaches have already been successfully used in regulatory decisions, raising the possibility that studies using RWD could increasingly be used to augment or replace traditional RCTs for the demonstration of drug effectiveness in certain contexts. These changes come against a background of long reliance on RCTs for regulatory decision-making, which are labor-intensive, costly, and produce data that can have limited applicability in real-world clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
While RWE from observational studies is well accepted for satisfying postapproval safety monitoring requirements, it has not commonly been used to demonstrate drug effectiveness for regulatory purposes. However, this position is changing as regulatory opinions, guidance frameworks, and RWD methodologies are evolving, with growing recognition of the value of using RWE that is acceptable for regulatory decision-making.
Topics: Decision Making; Drug Approval; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 31823482
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4932 -
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) Mar 2023Observational studies are often the only option to estimate effects of interventions during pregnancy. Causal inference from observational data can be conceptualized as...
BACKGROUND
Observational studies are often the only option to estimate effects of interventions during pregnancy. Causal inference from observational data can be conceptualized as an attempt to emulate a hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial: the target trial.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a step-by-step description of how to use healthcare databases to estimate the effects of interventions initiated during pregnancy. As an example, we describe how to specify and emulate a target trial of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, but the framework can be generally applied to point and sustained strategies involving both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions.
METHODS
First, we specify the protocol of a target trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vaccination during pregnancy. Second, we describe how to use observational data to emulate each component of the protocol of the target trial. We propose different target trials for different gestational periods because the outcomes of interest vary by gestational age at exposure. We identify challenges that affect (i) the target trial and thus its observational emulation (censoring and competing events), and (ii) mostly the observational emulation (confounding, immortal time, and measurement biases).
CONCLUSION
Some biases may be unavoidable in observational emulations, but others are avoidable. For instance, immortal time bias can be avoided by aligning the start of follow-up with the gestational age at the time of the intervention, as we would do in the target trial. Explicitly emulating target trials at different gestational ages can help reduce bias and improve the interpretability of effect estimates for interventions during pregnancy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Databases, Factual; Gestational Age; Vaccination; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36722806
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001562 -
Circulation Mar 2021Regulators are evaluating the use of noninterventional real-world evidence (RWE) studies to assess the effectiveness of medical products. The RCT DUPLICATE initiative...
BACKGROUND
Regulators are evaluating the use of noninterventional real-world evidence (RWE) studies to assess the effectiveness of medical products. The RCT DUPLICATE initiative (Randomized, Controlled Trials Duplicated Using Prospective Longitudinal Insurance Claims: Applying Techniques of Epidemiology) uses a structured process to design RWE studies emulating randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and compare results. We report findings of the first 10 trial emulations, evaluating cardiovascular outcomes of antidiabetic or antiplatelet medications.
METHODS
We selected 3 active-controlled and 7 placebo-controlled RCTs for replication. Using patient-level claims data from US commercial and Medicare payers, we implemented inclusion and exclusion criteria, selected primary end points, and comparator populations to emulate those of each corresponding RCT. Within the trial-mimicking populations, we conducted propensity score matching to control for >120 preexposure confounders. All study measures were prospectively defined and protocols registered before hazard ratios and 95% CIs were computed. Success criteria for the primary analysis were prespecified for each replication.
RESULTS
Despite attempts to emulate RCT design as closely as possible, differences between the RCT and corresponding RWE study populations remained. The regulatory conclusions were equivalent in 6 of 10. The RWE emulations achieved a hazard ratio estimate that was within the 95% CI from the corresponding RCT in 8 of 10 studies. In 9 of 10, either the regulatory or estimate agreement success criteria were fulfilled. The largest differences in effect estimates were found for RCTs where second-generation sulfonylureas were used as a proxy for placebo regarding cardiovascular effects. Nine of 10 replications had a standardized difference between effect estimates of <2, which suggests differences within expected random variation.
CONCLUSIONS
Agreement between RCT and RWE findings varies depending on which agreement metric is used. Interim findings indicate that selection of active comparator therapies with similar indications and use patterns enhances the validity of RWE. Even in the context of active comparators, concordance between RCT and RWE findings is not guaranteed, partially because trials are not emulated exactly. More trial emulations are needed to understand how often and in what contexts RWE findings match RCTs. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03936049, NCT04215523, NCT04215536, NCT03936010, NCT03936036, NCT03936062, NCT03936023, NCT03648424, NCT04237935, NCT04237922.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33327727
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051718 -
The American Journal of Bioethics : AJOB Jan 2020
Topics: Bioethics; Empirical Research; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31896333
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1695485 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Feb 2022
Topics: General Practice; Humans; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35091399
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718289 -
Current Osteoporosis Reports Dec 2019In this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
In this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for designing and conducting a pragmatic clinical trial compared with a classical randomized clinical trial.
RECENT FINDINGS
Pragmatic clinical trials are a popular study design testing effectiveness of health interventions and are intended to address the limitations associated with traditional explanatory randomized clinical trials testing efficacy of interventions. To date, only few pragmatic clinical trials have been conducted in osteoporosis. Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under routine clinical practice setting and are intended to inform policy makers and clinical decisions. Osteoporosis is a chronic disease well-suited to this particular study design given the existence of a clear and specific natural endpoint, namely fracture occurrence, and the availability of several treatments to prevent fractures.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31773402
DOI: 10.1007/s11914-019-00551-9 -
American Society of Clinical Oncology... Jun 2024Clinical trials are essential for advancing oncology treatment strategies and have contributed significantly to the decline in cancer mortality rates over the past... (Review)
Review
Clinical trials are essential for advancing oncology treatment strategies and have contributed significantly to the decline in cancer mortality rates over the past decades. Traditional explanatory trials, focused on establishing intervention efficacy in ideal settings, often lack generalizability and may not reflect real-world patient care scenarios. Furthermore, increasing complexity in cancer clinical trial design has led to challenges such as protocol deviations, slow enrollment leading to lengthened durations of trial, and escalating costs. By contrast, pragmatic trials aim to assess intervention effectiveness in more representative patient populations under routine clinical conditions. Here, we review the principles, methodologies, challenges, and advantages of incorporating pragmatic features (PFs) into cancer clinical trials. We illustrate the application of pragmatic trial designs in oncology and discuss the QUASAR collaborative, TAPUR study, and the ongoing PRAGMATICA-LUNG trial. Although not all oncology trials may be amenable to adopting fully pragmatic designs, integration of PFs when feasible will enhance trial generalizability and real-world applicability. Project Pragmatica and similar initiatives advocate for the integration of real-world practice with clinical trials, fostering a nuanced approach to oncology research that balances efficacy and effectiveness assessments, ultimately with a goal of improving patient outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Clinical Trials as Topic; Research Design; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Medical Oncology
PubMed: 38771997
DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_100040 -
Surgical Infections Aug 2021The goal of a randomized or observational study is to develop an unbiased and reliable answer to a therapeutic question. However, there are multiple pitfalls in the... (Review)
Review
The goal of a randomized or observational study is to develop an unbiased and reliable answer to a therapeutic question. However, there are multiple pitfalls in the reporting and interpretation of data that can compromise our ability to evaluate the pragmatism and the effectiveness of the intervention being studied. Researchers must be conscious of these biases when designing their studies, just as readers must be aware of these potential pitfalls when interpreting results. The purpose of this review is to highlight some of the more common sources of bias in clinical research, including internal and external validity, type 1 and type 2 error, reporting of secondary outcomes, the use of subgroup analyses, and multiple comparisons. This article also discusses potential solutions to these issues, including using the fragility index to understand the robustness of study conclusions, and generating an E value to determine the degree of unmeasured confounding in a study. With an understanding of these pitfalls, readers can critically review scientific literature and ascertain the validity of the conclusions.
Topics: Bias; Biomedical Research; Clinical Trials as Topic; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34270363
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2021.074 -
Seminars in Radiation Oncology Oct 2023The concept of informed consent has evolved considerably over the course of the 20th century, leading to its establishment as a foundational ethical principle for the... (Review)
Review
The concept of informed consent has evolved considerably over the course of the 20th century, leading to its establishment as a foundational ethical principle for the conduct of biomedical research in the United States. Even though it is now a highly regulated part of cancer research, the process of obtaining informed consent is often impeded by systemic, clinician, and patient factors that require both small- and large-scale intervention. New challenges and considerations continue to emerge due to innovations in clinical trial design, increases in utilization of genomic sequencing, and advances in genomic editing and artificial intelligence. We present a review of the history, policy, pragmatic challenges, and evolving role of the central ethical tenet of informed consent in clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Clinical Trials as Topic; Informed Consent; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37684064
DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.001