Seizure Assessment and Forecasting With Efficient Rapid-EEG: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Approximately 30% of critically ill patients have seizures, and more than half of these seizures do not have an overt clinical correlate. EEG is needed to avoid missing seizures and prevent overtreatment with antiseizure medications. Conventional-EEG (cEEG) resources are logistically constrained and unable to meet their growing demand for seizure detection even in highly developed centers. Brief EEG screening with the validated 2HELPS2B algorithm was proposed as a method to triage cEEG resources, but it is hampered by cEEG requirements, primarily EEG technologists. Seizure risk-stratification using reduced time-to-application rapid response-EEG (rrEEG) systems (∼5 minutes) could be a solution. We assessed the noninferiority of the 2HELPS2B score on a 1-hour rrEEG compared to cEEG. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective EEG diagnostic accuracy study was conducted from October 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022. Chart and EEG review performed with consecutive sampling at 4 tertiary care centers, included records of patients ≥18 years old, from January 1, 2018, to June 20, 2022. Monte Carlo simulation power analysis yielded n = 500 rrEEG; for secondary outcomes n = 500 cEEG and propensity-score covariate matching was planned. Primary outcome, noninferiority of rrEEG for seizure risk prediction, was assessed per area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Noninferiority margin (0.05) was based on the 2HELPS2B validation study. RESULTS: A total of 240 rrEEG with follow-on cEEG were obtained. Median age was 64 (interquartile range 22); 42% were female. 2HELPS2B on a 1-hour rrEEG met noninferiority to cEEG (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.90, p = 0.001). Secondary endpoints of comparison with a matched contemporaneous cEEG showed no significant difference in AUC (0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.94, p = 0.31); in false negative rate for the 2HELPS2B = 0 group (p = 1.0) rrEEG (0.021, 95% CI 0-0.062), cEEG (0.016, 95% CI 0-0.048); nor in survival analyses. DISCUSSION: 2HELPS2B on 1-hour rrEEG is noninferior to cEEG for seizure prediction. Patients with low-risk (2HELPS2B = 0) may be able to forgo prolonged cEEG, allowing for increased monitoring of at-risk patients. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that rrEEG is noninferior to cEEG in calculating the 2HELPS2B score to predict seizure risk.

SCANPatient: study protocol for a multi-centre, batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, randomised clinical trial of synoptic reporting of computerised tomography (CT) scans assessing cancers of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Complete surgical removal of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is central to all curative treatment approaches for this aggressive disease, yet this is only possible in patients technically amenable to resection. Hence, an accurate assessment of whether patients are suitable for surgery is of paramount importance. The SCANPatient trial aims to test whether implementing a structured synoptic radiological report results in increased institutional accuracy in defining surgical resectability of non-metastatic PDAC. METHODS: SCANPatient is a batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, cluster randomised clinical trial. The trial will be conducted at 33 Australian hospitals all of which hold regular multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDMs) to discuss newly diagnosed patients with PDAC. Each site is required to manage a minimum of 20 patients per year (across all stages). Hospitals will be randomised to begin synoptic reporting within a batched, stepped wedge design. Initially all hospitals will continue to use their current reporting method; within each batch, after each 6-month period, a randomly selected group of hospitals will commence using the synoptic reports, until all hospitals are using synoptic reporting. Each hospital will provide data from patients who (i) are aged 18 or older; (ii) have suspected PDAC and have an abdominal CT scan, and (iii) are presented at a participating MDM. Non-metastatic patients will be documented as one of the following categories: (1) locally advanced and surgically unresectable; (2) borderline resectable; or (3) anatomically clearly resectable (Note: Metastatic disease is treated as a separate category). Data collection will last for 36 months in each batch, and a total of 2400 patients will be included. DISCUSSION: Better classifying patients with non-metastatic PDAC as having tumours that are either clearly resectable, borderline or locally advanced and unresectable may improve patient outcomes by optimising care and treatment planning. The borderline resectable group are a small but important cohort in whom surgery with curative intent may be considered; however, inconsistencies with definitions and an understanding of resectability status means these patients are often incorrectly classified and hence overlooked for curative options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SCANPatient trial was registered on 17th May 2023 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12623000508673).

Designing target trials using electronic health records: A case study of second-line disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Emulation of the "target trial" (TT), a hypothetical pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT), using observational data can be used to mitigate issues commonly encountered in comparative effectiveness research (CER) when randomized trials are not logistically, ethically, or financially feasible. However, cardiovascular (CV) health research has been slow to adopt TT emulation. Here, we demonstrate the design and analysis of a TT emulation using electronic health records to study the comparative effectiveness of the addition of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) to a regimen of methotrexate on CV events among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: We used data from an electronic medical records-based cohort of RA patients from Northwestern Medicine to emulate the TT. Follow-up began 3 months after initial prescription of MTX (2000-2020) and included all available follow-up through June 30, 2020. Weighted pooled logistic regression was used to estimate differences in CVD risk and survival. Cloning was used to handle immortal time bias and weights to improve baseline and time-varying covariate imbalance. RESULTS: We identified 659 eligible people with RA with average follow-up of 46 months and 31 MACE events. The month 24 adjusted risk difference for MACE comparing initiation vs non-initiation of a DMARD was -1.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.74, 1.95%), and the marginal hazard ratio (HR) was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.23). In analyses subject to immortal time bias, the HR was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.29-1.44). CONCLUSION: In this sample, we did not observe evidence of differences in risk of MACE, a finding that is compatible with previously published meta-analyses of RCTs. Thoughtful application of the TT framework provides opportunities to conduct CER in observational data. Benchmarking results of observational analyses to previously published RCTs can lend credibility to interpretation.

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. PARTICIPANTS: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. RESULTS: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints.

Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments.

Importance: Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease. Objective: To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs. Exposures: Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores. Results: A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

A protocol for stakeholder engagement in deliver-EE: A pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial evaluating effects of meal delivery on the ability of homebound older adults to remain in the community.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials include a detailed protocol for stakeholder engagement in the design and execution of the clinical trial. Deliver-EE is a pragmatic clinical trial to assess how different types of home-delivered meals can affect older adults' health and well-being. We present the protocol for stakeholder engagement in this national, multi-site trial and initial findings from our efforts. METHODS: Twenty-nine participants were recruited to two stakeholder advisory panels. The "Lived Experience Perspectives" panel is defined as the clients, caregivers, and meal delivery drivers with first-hand knowledge and lived experiences with meal delivery. The "System Perspectives" panel is defined as representatives from the larger financial, clinical, regulatory, and operational environments in which meal delivery to homebound older adults operate. Together, these two groups holistically represent interested parties that coordinate the interdependent elements of meal delivery to homebound older adults in order to: 1) inform our understanding of what matters most to older adults, their families, and the larger health and social care systems; 2) provide strategies to overcome challenges conducting the study; 3) enhance dissemination and uptake of study findings; and 4) identify opportunities for future research. RESULTS: Although stakeholder partners share a common goal of using home-delivered meals as a method to improve outcomes for homebound older adults, individuals have different goals for participating as advisors in this research. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what individual stakeholders hope to gain from their participation is critical in designing an effective engagement protocol and critical for meaningful and rigorous stakeholder engagement in clinical trials.

What is the ideal time to begin tapering opioid agonist treatment? A protocol for a retrospective population-based comparative effectiveness study in British Columbia, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) tapering involves a gradual reduction in daily medication dose to ultimately reach a state of opioid abstinence. Due to the high risk of relapse and overdose after tapering, this practice is not recommended by clinical guidelines, however, clients may still request to taper off medication. The ideal time to initiate an OAT taper is not known. However, ethically, taper plans should acknowledge clients' preferences and autonomy but apply principles of shared informed decision-making regarding safety and efficacy. Linked population-level data capturing real-world tapering practices provide a valuable opportunity to improve existing evidence on when to contemplate starting an OAT taper. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative times from OAT initiation at which a taper can be initiated, with a primary outcome of taper completion, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of eight provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (01 January 2010 to 17 March 2020). Our primary outcomes include taper completion and all-cause mortality during treatment. We propose a 'per-protocol' target trial to compare different durations to taper initiation on the likelihood of taper completion. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the heterogeneity and robustness of the results including assessment of effectiveness and safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Association Between Coronary Assessment in Heart Failure and Clinical Outcomes Within a Safety-Net Setting Using a Target Trial Emulation Observational Design.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure (HF). Most patients do not undergo coronary assessment after HF diagnosis. There are no randomized clinical trials of coronary assessment after HF diagnosis. METHODS: Using an electronic health record cohort of all individuals with HF within the San Francisco Health Network from 2001 to 2019, we identified factors associated with coronary assessment. Then, we studied the association of coronary assessment within 30 days of HF diagnosis with all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and emergent angiography using a target trial emulation observational comparative-effectiveness approach. Target trial emulation is an approach to causal inference based on creating a hypothetical randomized clinical trial protocol and using observational data to emulate the protocol. We used propensity scores for covariate adjustment. We used national death records to improve the ascertainment of mortality and included falsification end points for the cause of death. RESULTS: Among 14 829 individuals with HF (median, 62 years old; 5855 [40%] women), 3987 (26.9%) ever completed coronary assessment, with 2467/13 301 (18.5%) with unknown coronary artery disease status at HF diagnosis assessed. Women, older individuals, and people without stable housing were less likely to complete coronary assessment. Among 5972 eligible persons of whom 627 underwent early elective coronary assessment, coronary assessment was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.97]; P=0.025), reduced risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73-1.00]), higher rates of revascularization (odds ratio, 7.6 [95% CI, 5.4-10.6]), and higher use of medical therapy (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.7-3.6]), but not the falsification end points. CONCLUSIONS: In a safety-net population, disparities in coronary assessment after HF diagnosis are not fully explained by coronary artery disease risk factors. Early coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes possibly related to higher rates of revascularization and guideline-directed medical therapy but with low certainty that this finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding.

Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.

Aim: This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. Materials & methods: We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. Results: The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Conclusion: Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.

Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.

Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21-1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73-1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86-1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.

Target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research with observational data: Promise and challenges for studying medications for opioid use disorder.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) increase retention in care and decrease mortality during active treatment; however, information about the comparative effectiveness of different forms of MOUD is sparse. Observational comparative effectiveness studies are subject to many types of bias; a robust framework to minimize bias would improve the quality of comparative effectiveness evidence. This paper discusses the use of target trial emulation as a framework to conduct comparative effectiveness studies of MOUD with administrative data. Using examples from our planned research project comparing buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone with respect to the rates of MOUD discontinuation, we provide a primer on the challenges and approaches to employing target trial emulation in the study of MOUD.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation. METHODS: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation. CONCLUSIONS: CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

Healthy food delivery for type 2 diabetes management in rural clinics' patients: A comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations experience a higher prevalence of both food insecurity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) than metropolitan populations and face many challenges in accessing resources essential to optimal T2DM self-management. This study aims to address these challenges by delivering a T2DM-appropriate food box and recipes directly to rural participants' homes. METHODS: This is a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial including 400 English- or Spanish-speaking rural adult participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≥6.5%) experiencing food insecurity. Participants are randomly assigned to a 3-month Healthy Food Delivery Intervention (HFDI) plus one 60-min virtual consultation with a diabetes educator or consultation only. The HFDI includes a weekly food box delivery with recipes. Data are collected at pre-intervention, 3-months (post-intervention), 9-months, and 15-months. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c, with secondary measures including diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015, calculated from one 24-h dietary recall at each data collection time point), cardio-metabolic risk factors (i.e., blood pressure, lipids, body mass index, glucose), and patient-centered outcomes (e.g., T2DM self-efficacy, T2DM-related distress). Process evaluation data (e.g., successful food box deliveries, diabetes educator consultation attendance, intervention satisfaction) are collected during and post-intervention (3-months). A cost-effectiveness analysis based on traditional cost per quality-adjusted life year gain thresholds will be conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness between HFDI plus consultation and consultation alone. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of an intervention that promotes participant adherence and improves access to healthy food. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04876053.

An Integrated Care Pathway for depression in adolescents: protocol for a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Non-randomized, Cluster Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our group developed an Integrated Care Pathway to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based care for adolescents experiencing depression called CARIBOU-2 (Care for Adolescents who Receive Information 'Bout OUtcomes, 2nd iteration). The core pathway components are assessment, psychoeducation, psychotherapy options, medication options, caregiver support, measurement-based care team reviews and graduation. We aim to test the clinical and implementation effectiveness of the CARIBOU-2 pathway relative to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in community mental health settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation, Non-randomized Cluster Controlled Trial Design. Primary participants will be adolescents (planned n = 300, aged 13-18 years) with depressive symptoms, presenting to one of six community mental health agencies. All sites will begin in the TAU condition and transition to the CARIBOU-2 intervention after enrolling 25 adolescents. The primary clinical outcome is the rate of change of depressive symptoms from baseline to the 24-week endpoint using the Childhood Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Generalized mixed effects modelling will be conducted to compare this outcome between intervention types. Our primary hypothesis is that there will be a greater rate of reduction in depressive symptoms in the group receiving the CARIBOU-2 intervention relative to TAU over 24 weeks as per the CDRS-R. Implementation outcomes will also be examined, including clinician fidelity to the pathway and its components, and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approvals have been obtained. Should our results support our hypotheses, systematic implementation of the CARIBOU-2 intervention in other community mental health agencies would be indicated.

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

A methodological review of the high-dimensional propensity score in comparative-effectiveness and safety-of-interventions research finds incomplete reporting relative to algorithm development and robustness.

OBJECTIVES: The use of secondary databases has become popular for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of interventions in real-life settings. However, the absence of important confounders in these databases is challenging. To address this issue, the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) algorithm was developed in 2009. This algorithm uses proxy variables for mitigating confounding by combining information available across several healthcare dimensions. This study assessed the methodology and reporting of the hdPS in comparative effectiveness and safety research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this methodological review, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar from July 2009 to May 2022 for studies that used the hdPS for evaluating the effectiveness or safety of healthcare interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed how the hdPS was applied and reported. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: In total, 136 studies met the inclusion criteria; the median publication year was 2018 (Q1-Q3 2016-2020). The studies included 192 datasets, mostly North American databases (n = 132, 69%). The hdPS was used in primary analysis in 120 studies (88%). Dimensions were defined in 101 studies (74%), with a median of 5 (Q1-Q3 4-6) dimensions included. A median of 500 (Q1-Q3 200-500) empirically identified covariates were selected. Regarding hdPS reporting, only 11 studies (8%) reported all recommended items. Most studies (n = 81, 60%) had a moderate overall risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is room for improvement in the reporting of hdPS studies, especially regarding the transparency of methodological choices that underpin the construction of the hdPS.