The TiME Trial: A Fully Embedded, Cluster-Randomized, Pragmatic Trial of Hemodialysis Session Duration.

BACKGROUND: Data from clinical trials to inform practice in maintenance hemodialysis are limited. Incorporating randomized trials into dialysis clinical care delivery should help generate practice-guiding evidence, but the feasibility of this approach has not been established. METHODS: To develop approaches for embedding trials into routine delivery of maintenance hemodialysis, we performed a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial demonstration project, the Time to Reduce Mortality in ESRD (TiME) trial, evaluating effects of session duration on mortality (primary outcome) and hospitalization rate. Dialysis facilities randomized to the intervention adopted a default session duration ≥4.25 hours (255 minutes) for incident patients; those randomized to usual care had no trial-driven approach to session duration. Implementation was highly centralized, with no on-site research personnel and complete reliance on clinically acquired data. We used multiple strategies to engage facility personnel and participating patients. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 7035 incident patients from 266 dialysis units. We discontinued the trial at a median follow-up of 1.1 years because of an inadequate between-group difference in session duration. For the primary analysis population (participants with estimated body water ≤42.5 L), mean session duration was 216 minutes for the intervention group and 207 minutes for the usual care group. We found no reduction in mortality or hospitalization rate for the intervention versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Although a highly pragmatic design allowed efficient enrollment, data acquisition, and monitoring, intervention uptake was insufficient to determine whether longer hemodialysis sessions improve outcomes. More effective strategies for engaging clinical personnel and patients are likely required to evaluate clinical trial interventions that are fully embedded in care delivery.

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.

A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of genotype-guided (pharmacogenetically based) dosing of warfarin has been tested only in small clinical trials or observational studies, with equivocal results. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1015 patients to receive doses of warfarin during the first 5 days of therapy that were determined according to a dosing algorithm that included both clinical variables and genotype data or to one that included clinical variables only. All patients and clinicians were unaware of the dose of warfarin during the first 4 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) was in the therapeutic range from day 4 or 5 through day 28 of therapy. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 45.2% in the genotype-guided group and 45.4% in the clinically guided group (adjusted mean difference, [genotype-guided group minus clinically guided group], -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 3.1; P=0.91). There also was no significant between-group difference among patients with a predicted dose difference between the two algorithms of 1 mg per day or more. There was, however, a significant interaction between dosing strategy and race (P=0.003). Among black patients, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was less in the genotype-guided group than in the clinically guided group. The rates of the combined outcome of any INR of 4 or more, major bleeding, or thromboembolism did not differ significantly according to dosing strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided dosing of warfarin did not improve anticoagulation control during the first 4 weeks of therapy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; COAG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00839657.).

Rationale and design of the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics trial.

BACKGROUND: Current dosing practices for warfarin are empiric and result in the need for frequent dose changes as the international normalized ratio gets too high or too low. As a result, patients are put at increased risk for thromboembolism, bleeding, and premature discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy. Prior research has identified clinical and genetic factors that can alter warfarin dose requirements, but few randomized clinical trials have examined the utility of using clinical and genetic information to improve anticoagulation control or clinical outcomes among a large, diverse group of patients initiating warfarin. METHODS: The COAG trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial comparing 2 approaches to guiding warfarin therapy initiation: initiation of warfarin therapy based on algorithms using clinical information plus an individual's genotype using genes known to influence warfarin response ("genotype-guided dosing") versus only clinical information ("clinical-guided dosing") (www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00839657). RESULTS: The COAG trial design is described. The study hypothesis is that, among 1,022 enrolled patients, genotype-guided dosing relative to clinical-guided dosing during the initial dosing period will increase the percentage of time that patients spend in the therapeutic international normalized ratio range in the first 4 weeks of therapy. CONCLUSION: The COAG will determine if genetic information provides added benefit above and beyond clinical information alone.

Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory.

Widespread sharing of data from electronic health records and patient-reported outcomes can strengthen the national capacity for conducting cost-effective clinical trials and allow research to be embedded within routine care delivery. While pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been performed for decades, they now can draw on rich sources of clinical and operational data that are continuously fed back to inform research and practice. The Health Care Systems Collaboratory program, initiated by the NIH Common Fund in 2012, engages healthcare systems as partners in discussing and promoting activities, tools, and strategies for supporting active participation in PCTs. The NIH Collaboratory consists of seven demonstration projects, and seven problem-specific working group 'Cores', aimed at leveraging the data captured in heterogeneous 'real-world' environments for research, thereby improving the efficiency, relevance, and generalizability of trials. Here, we introduce the Collaboratory, focusing on its Phenotype, Data Standards, and Data Quality Core, and present early observations from researchers implementing PCTs within large healthcare systems. We also identify gaps in knowledge and present an informatics research agenda that includes identifying methods for the definition and appropriate application of phenotypes in diverse healthcare settings, and methods for validating both the definition and execution of electronic health records based phenotypes.

Signposts along the NIH roadmap for reengineering clinical research: lessons from the Clinical Research Networks initiative.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap for Medical Research aims to increase the efficiency and speed of clinical research. We report results and lessons learned from a key component of the Roadmap, the Clinical Research Networks initiative. METHODS: Twelve diverse, experienced, large, clinical research networks were funded for 3 years to develop strategies for integrating, expanding, and increasing the interoperability of clinical research networks in support of the Roadmap goals. Network leaders met periodically in person and by teleconference to describe common challenges encountered and solutions used for expansion and increased interoperability. RESULTS: These networks developed innovative solutions to technical challenges, including strategies for interoperability of information systems and management of complex information system technologies (eg, "brokering" to address data system incompatibility, data transfer, and security requirements), and solutions to human factor challenges at the individual, group, intraorganizational, and interorganizational levels (eg, applying collaborative organizing and decision-making processes based on key principles). CONCLUSIONS: These solutions can provide guidance to existing and future clinical research networks, particularly those forming as part of the NIH Clinical Translation Science Award program. Remaining technical and human factor challenges, however, as well as the largely unmet need for consistent funding for network infrastructure and maintenance, stand in the way of fulfilling the vision of a robust future role for clinical research networks.

A randomized controlled trial of intravesical bacillus calmette-guerin for treatment refractory interstitial cystitis.

PURPOSE: We compared intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) to placebo instillations in patients with treatment refractory interstitial cystitis (IC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects who met the National Institutes of Health-National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases criteria for IC, and reported at least moderate pain and frequency for a minimum of 6 months before study entry, were randomized to 6 weekly double-blinded intravesical instillations of either BCG or placebo, and then followed for a total of 34 weeks. The primary outcome was a patient reported global response assessment at week 34, supplemented with medications for IC during weeks 31 to 34. Secondary outcomes included a 24-hour voiding diary, pain, urgency, validated IC symptom indexes and adverse events. The target sample size was 260 participants, designed to detect a difference in response rates between placebo and BCG of 30% and 50%, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 265 participants were randomized and 17 (6%) patients withdrew from study. The response rates for the primary outcome were 12% for placebo and 21% for BCG (p = 0.062). Small improvements were observed for all secondary outcomes, some more so with BCG, but these differences were of borderline statistical significance. Although a large number of adverse events were reported in the BCG arm, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment arms in overall adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the BCG safety profile was acceptable, the response rate for the primary outcome was low. Effective medical treatment for patients with moderate to severe interstitial cystitis remains elusive.