Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to data collection procedures or a study intervention is often the cause of a failed clinical trial. Data from connected sensors, including wearables, referred to here as biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs), are capable of capturing adherence to both digital therapeutics and digital data collection procedures, thereby providing the opportunity to identify the determinants of adherence and thereafter, methods to maximize adherence. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the methods and definitions by which adherence has been captured and reported using BioMeTs in recent years. Identifying key gaps allowed us to make recommendations regarding minimum reporting requirements and consistency of definitions for BioMeT-based adherence data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2014 and 2019, which deployed a BioMeT outside the clinical or laboratory setting for which a quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based measurement of adherence was reported. After systematically screening the manuscripts for eligibility, we extracted details regarding study design, participants, the BioMeT or BioMeTs used, and the definition and units of adherence. The primary definitions of adherence were categorized as a continuous variable based on duration (highest resolution), a continuous variable based on the number of measurements completed, or a categorical variable (lowest resolution). RESULTS: Our PubMed search terms identified 940 manuscripts; 100 (10.6%) met our eligibility criteria and contained descriptions of 110 BioMeTs. During literature screening, we found that 30% (53/177) of the studies that used a BioMeT outside of the clinical or laboratory setting failed to report a sensor-based, nonsurrogate, quantitative measurement of adherence. We identified 37 unique definitions of adherence reported for the 110 BioMeTs and observed that uniformity of adherence definitions was associated with the resolution of the data reported. When adherence was reported as a continuous time-based variable, the same definition of adherence was adopted for 92% (46/50) of the tools. However, when adherence data were simplified to a categorical variable, we observed 25 unique definitions of adherence reported for 37 tools. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based adherence data be reported for all BioMeTs when feasible; a clear description of the sensor or sensors used to capture adherence data, the algorithm or algorithms that convert sample-level measurements to a metric of adherence, and the analytic validation data demonstrating that BioMeT-generated adherence is an accurate and reliable measurement of actual use be provided when available; and primary adherence data be reported as a continuous variable followed by categorical definitions if needed, and that the categories adopted are supported by clinical validation data and/or consistent with previous reports.

Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Well-being: Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). METHODS: Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. RESULTS: We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321.

Underuse of oral anticoagulants in privately insured patients with atrial fibrillation: A population being targeted by the IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib).

BACKGROUND: Many studies showing underuse of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) predated the advent of the non-vitamin K antagonist OACs. We retrospectively examined use of OACs in a large commercially insured population. METHODS: Administrative claims data from 4 research partners participating in FDA-Catalyst, a program of the Sentinel Initiative, were queried in September 2017. Patients were included if they were ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, and had ≥2 diagnosis codes for AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, absence of contraindications to OAC use, and no evidence of OAC use in the 365 days before the index AF diagnosis. The main outcome measures of the current analysis were rates of OAC use in the prior 12 months of cohort identification and factors associated with non-use. RESULTS: A total of 197,806 AF patients met the eligibility criteria prior to assessment of OAC treatment. Of these, 179,580 (91%) patients were ≥65 years old and 73,286 (37%) patients were ≥80 years old. Half of the patients (98,903) were randomized to the early intervention arm in the IMPACT-AFib trial and constitute the cohort for this analysis. Of these, 32,295 (33%) had no evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months. Compared with patients with evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months, patients without OAC use were more likely to be ≥80 years old, women, and have a history of anemia (51% vs 47%) and less likely to have diabetes (41% vs 44%), history of stroke or TIA (15% vs 19%), and history of heart failure (39% vs 48%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high risk of stroke, one-third of privately insured patients with AF and no obvious contraindications to an OAC were not treated with an OAC. There is an unmet need for evidence-based interventions that could lead to greater use of OACs in patients with AF at risk for stroke.

Practical challenges in the conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health plans: Lessons of IMPACT-AFib, an FDA-Catalyst trial.

IMPACT-AFib was an 80,000-patient randomized clinical trial implemented by five US insurance companies (health plans) aimed at increasing the use of oral anticoagulants by individuals with atrial fibrillation who were at high risk of stroke and not on treatment. The underlying thesis was that patients could be change agents to initiate prescribing discussions with their providers. We tested the effect of mailing information to both patients and their providers. We used administrative medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data to identify eligible patients, to randomize them to an early or delayed intervention, and to assess clinical outcomes. The core data were analysis-ready datasets each site had created and curated for the FDA's Sentinel System, supplemented by updated "fresh" pharmacy and enrollment data to ensure eligibility at the time of intervention. Following mutually agreed upon procedures, sites linked to additional internal source data to implement the intervention-educational information mailed to patients and their providers in the early intervention arm, and to providers of patients in the delayed intervention arm approximately 12 months later. The primary analysis compares the early intervention arm to the delayed intervention arm, prior to the delayed intervention being conducted (i.e. compares intervention to non-intervention). The endpoints of interest were evidence of initiation of anticoagulation (primary) as well as clinical endpoints, including stroke and hospitalization for bleeding. Major challenges, some unanticipated, identified during the planning phase include convening multi-stakeholder investigator teams and advisors, addressing ethical concerns about not intervening in a usual care comparison group, and identifying and avoiding interference with sites' routine programs that were similar to the intervention. Needs and challenges during the implementation phase included the fact that even limited site-specific programming greatly increased time and effort, the need to refresh research data extracts immediately before outreach to patients and providers, potential difficulty identifying low-cost medications such as warfarin that may not be reimbursed by health plans and so not discoverable in dispensing data, the need to develop workarounds when "providers" in claims data were facilities, difficulty addressing clustering of patients by provider because providers can have multiple identifiers within and between health plans, and the need to anticipate loss to follow up because of health plan disenrollment or change in benefits. As pragmatic trials begin to shape evidence generation within clinical practice, investigators should anticipate issues inherent to claims data and working with multiple large sites. In IMPACT-AFib, we found that investing in collaboration and communication among all parties throughout all phases of the study helped ensure common understanding, early identification of challenges, and streamlined actual implementation.

FDA-Catalyst-Using FDA's Sentinel Initiative for large-scale pragmatic randomized trials: Approach and lessons learned during the planning phase of the first trial.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel Initiative is well positioned to support pragmatic clinical trials. FDA-Catalyst combines direct contact with health plan members and/or providers with data in the Sentinel infrastructure. Here, we describe the rationale, feasibility analyses, and lessons learned from the planning phase of the first large pragmatic trial conducted using the Sentinel Initiative's delivery system capabilities-IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (the IMPACT-AFib trial). METHODS: During the planning phase, we convened representatives from five commercial health plans, FDA, study coordinating centers, and a patient representative for protocol development, institutional review board preparation, and other activities. Administrative claims data from the plans were included in a retrospective cohort analysis to assess sample size for the trial. Members ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, ≥2 diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation, a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention, and no evidence of oral anticoagulant use in the 365 days prior to the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis in 2013 were included. Exclusions for the analysis included other conditions requiring anticoagulation, history of intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleed. We calculated rates of oral anticoagulant use, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and bleeding in the 365 days following the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 44,786 members with atrial fibrillation with no evidence of recent oral anticoagulant use were identified. In total, 87% (n = 38,759) were classified as having a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulants. Of those, 33% (n = 12,867) had a new oral anticoagulant dispensed during the following year, 15% (n = 5917) were hospitalized for stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 9% (n = 3469) for bleeding events. This information was used to develop the trial protocol including sample size, power calculations, and level of randomization. CONCLUSION: Sentinel infrastructure generated preliminary data that supported planning and implementation of a large pragmatic trial embedded in health plans. This planning identified unanticipated challenges that must be addressed in similar trials.

Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials.

Pragmatic clinical trials are designed to inform decision makers about the benefits, burdens, and risks of health interventions in real-world settings. Pragmatic clinical trials often use for research purposes data collected in the course of clinical practice. The distinctive features of pragmatic clinical trials demand fresh thinking about what is required to act properly toward people affected by their conduct, in ways that go beyond ensuring the protection of rights and welfare for "human research subjects" under conventional research ethics regulations. To stimulate such work, we propose to distinguish among categories of research participants in pragmatic clinical trials as follows: Direct participants: (1) individuals being directly intervened upon and/or (2) individuals from whom personal identifiable data are being collected for the purposes of the pragmatic clinical trial. Indirect participants: individuals who are (1) not identified as direct participants and (2) whose rights and welfare may be affected by the intervention through their routine exposure to the environment in which the intervention is being deployed. Collateral participants: patient groups and other stakeholder communities who may be otherwise affected by the occurrence and findings of the pragmatic clinical trial. We illustrate these distinctions with case examples and discuss the distinctive responsibilities of researchers and pragmatic clinical trial leadership toward each type of participant. We suggest that pragmatic clinical trial investigators, institutional review boards, health systems leaders, and others engaged in the research enterprise work together to identify these participants. For indirect participants, risks and benefits to which they are exposed should be weighed to ensure that their rights and welfare are protected accordingly, and communication strategies should be considered to help them make well-informed decisions. Collateral participants could provide input on the design, planning, and conduct of a pragmatic clinical trial and offer insights regarding the best way to communicate the trial's results to their constituencies.

Preceding Night Sleep Quality and Atrial Fibrillation Episodes in the I-STOP-AFIB Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic sleep disruption is associated with incident atrial fibrillation (AF), but it is unclear whether poor sleep quality acutely triggers AF. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between a given night's sleep quality and the risk of a discrete AF episode. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF in the I-STOP-AFIB (Individualized Studies of Triggers of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) trial reported sleep quality on a daily basis. Participants were also queried daily regarding AF episodes and were provided smartphone-based mobile electrocardiograms (ECGs) (KardiaMobile, AliveCor). RESULTS: Using 15,755 days of data from 419 patients, worse sleep quality on any given night was associated with a 15% greater odds of a self-reported AF episode the next day (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.20; P < 0.0001) after adjustment for the day of the week. No statistically significant associations between worsening sleep quality and mobile ECG-confirmed AF events were observed (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.95-1.13; P = 0.43), although substantially fewer of these mobile ECG-confirmed events may have limited statistical power. Poor sleep was also associated with longer self-reported AF episodes, with each progressive category of worsening sleep associated with 16 (95% CI: 12-21; P < 0.001) more minutes of AF the next day. CONCLUSIONS: Poor sleep was associated with an immediately heightened risk for self-reported AF episodes, and a dose-response relationship existed such that progressively worse sleep was associated with longer episodes of AF the next day. These data suggest that sleep quality may be a potentially modifiable trigger relevant to the near-term risk of a discrete AF episode.

Exploring Diet-Based Treatments for Atrial Fibrillation: Patient Empowerment and Citizen Science as a Model for Quality-of-Life-Centered Solutions.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder in the Western world. Between the years 2010 and 2019, the global prevalence of AF rose from 33.5 million to 59 million, highlighting the importance of developing equitable treatments for patients. The disease is associated with symptoms such as palpitations, dizziness, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction. In addition, AF increases the risk of developing a stroke and heart failure. Despite new insights into risk factors that can lead to the development of AF, the success of current treatments is suboptimal. Numerous risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, have been associated with the development and progression of AF. As these can be lifestyle-related risk factors, lifestyle modification may be a solution to reduce AF-related symptoms as well as episodes. Research results show that certain dietary changes can reduce AF and numerous risk factors for AF. Increasing attention is being given to Mediterranean and whole, plant-based eating patterns, which emphasize eating grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, while excluding most-or all-animal products. Hence, what are the beneficial aspects of a Mediterranean and plant-based diet which consists mainly of unprocessed foods? In the current review, we discuss the outcomes of diet-based treatments. Moreover, other diet-related treatments, brought up by patient initiatives, are highlighted. These patient-initiated studies include L-glutamine and electrolytes as options to manage AF. Also, we highlight the emerging importance of valuing patient needs and a quality-of-life-centered approach to medicine. As indicated by recent studies and patient experiences, citizen science can create inclusive solutions that lead to patient empowerment and a holistic approach for AF management.

The challenges of data safety monitoring for a pragmatic study: Lessons from the ADAPTABLE study.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs) play a critical role in protecting the safety of participants and integrity of clinical studies. While there are well-established DMC guidelines for traditional, randomized controlled trials, the clinical trial community is still in the search for best practices in data and safety monitoring in pragmatic clinical trials. ADAPTABLE was a large, open label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial, harnessing real world data from multiple sources and studying the comparative effectiveness of the two most common dosages of aspirin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Specific issues arose in ADAPTABLE such as data quality, information latency, and protocol adherence, and these issues were both expected and unexpected features of the pragmatic study design. These issues imposed great challenges to the DMC members who were tasked to make critical decisions during the study. This article summarizes the unique experience of the ADAPTABLE DMC, including the internal debates and concerns, the concerted efforts to accomplish its mission, and the special contribution of the patient representatives. We also offer recommendations on data and safety monitoring for future pragmatic trials.

Individualized Studies of Triggers of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: The I-STOP-AFib Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. Although patients have reported that various exposures determine when and if an AF event will occur, a prospective evaluation of patient-selected triggers has not been conducted, and the utility of characterizing presumed AF-related triggers for individual patients remains unknown. Objective: To test the hypothesis that n-of-1 trials of self-selected AF triggers would enhance AF-related quality of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial lasting a minimum of 10 weeks tested a smartphone mobile application used by symptomatic patients with paroxysmal AF who owned a smartphone and were interested in testing a presumed AF trigger. Participants were screened between December 22, 2018, and March 29, 2020. Interventions: n-of-1 Participants received instructions to expose or avoid self-selected triggers in random 1-week blocks for 6 weeks, and the probability their trigger influenced AF risk was then communicated. Controls monitored their AF over the same time period. Main Outcomes and Measures: AF was assessed daily by self-report and using a smartphone-based electrocardiogram recording device. The primary outcome comparing n-of-1 and control groups was the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) score at 10 weeks. All participants could subsequently opt for additional trigger testing. Results: Of 446 participants who initiated (mean [SD] age, 58 [14] years; 289 men [58%]; 461 White [92%]), 320 (72%) completed all study activities. Self-selected triggers included caffeine (n = 53), alcohol (n = 43), reduced sleep (n = 31), exercise (n = 30), lying on left side (n = 17), dehydration (n = 10), large meals (n = 7), cold food or drink (n = 5), specific diets (n = 6), and other customized triggers (n = 4). No significant differences in AFEQT scores were observed between the n-of-1 vs AF monitoring-only groups. In the 4-week postintervention follow-up period, significantly fewer daily AF episodes were reported after trigger testing compared with controls over the same time period (adjusted relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43- 0.83; P < .001). In a meta-analysis of the individualized trials, only exposure to alcohol was associated with significantly heightened risks of AF events. Conclusions and Relevance: n-of-1 Testing of AF triggers did not improve AF-associated quality of life but was associated with a reduction in AF events. Acute exposure to alcohol increased AF risk, with no evidence that other exposures, including caffeine, more commonly triggered AF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03323099.

Effect of Mailing Educational Material to Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians on Use of Oral Anticoagulants: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Only about half of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at increased risk for stroke are treated with an oral anticoagulant (OAC), despite guideline recommendations for their use. Educating patients with AF about prevention of stroke with OACs may enable them as agents of change to initiate OAC treatment. Objective: To determine whether an educational intervention directed to patients and their clinicians stimulates the use of OACs in patients with AF who are not receiving OACs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Implementation of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib) trial was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from September 25, 2017, to May 1, 2019, embedded in health plans that participate in the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System. It used the distributed database comprising health plan members to identify eligible patients, their clinicians, and outcomes. IMPACT-AFib enrolled patients with AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc (cardiac failure or dysfunction, hypertension, age 65-74 [1 point] or ≥75 years [2 points], diabetes, and stroke, transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism [2 points]-vascular disease, and sex category [female]) score of 2 or more, no evidence of OAC prescription dispensing in the preceding 12 months, and no hospitalization-related bleeding event within the prior 6 months. Interventions: Randomization to a single mailing of patient and/or clinician educational materials vs control. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analysis was performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with at least 1 OAC prescription dispensed or at least 4 international normalized ratio test results within 1 year of the intervention. Results: Among 47 333 patients, there were 24 909 men (52.6%), the mean (SD) age was 77.9 (9.7) years, mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 (1.7), 22 404 patients (47.3%) had an ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) bleeding risk score of 5 or more, and 8890 patients (18.8%) had a history of hospitalization for bleeding. There were 2328 of 23 546 patients (9.9%) in the intervention group with initiation of OAC at 1 year compared with 2330 of 23 787 patients (9.8%) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .79). Conclusions and Relevance: Among a large population with AF with a guideline indication for OACs for stroke prevention who were randomized to a mailed educational intervention or to usual care, there was no clinically meaningful, numerical, or statistically significant difference in rates of OAC initiation. More-intensive interventions are needed to try and address the public health issue of underuse of anticoagulation for stroke prevention among patients with AF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03259373.

Differences in Preferences Between Clinicians and Patients for the Use and Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in reducing the stroke risk for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation if prescribed at the labeled dose, yet underdosing is frequent. Little is known about clinician knowledge and patient or clinician preferences for DOAC dosing. Methods and Results From April 2019 to March 2020, 240 clinicians and 343 patients with atrial fibrillation completed an assessment of anticoagulation knowledge/preferences. Clinician knowledge of DOAC dosing was tested with 4 hypothetical patient scenarios. Patients and clinicians were asked to grade the importance of 25 factors in anticoagulation decision making. Among clinicians, the median age was 55 years, and 23% were primary care clinicians. In scenarios of a patient indicated for full-dose DOAC, 41.2% of clinicians underdosed apixaban and 17.6% underdosed rivaroxaban. In scenarios of a patient indicated for reduced-dose DOAC, 64.6% and 71.7% of clinicians chose to use reduced-dose apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. Only 35.0% of clinicians correctly answered all 4 scenarios with the label-indicated dose; this knowledge gap was similar between clinicians who did and did not underdose. Among patients with atrial fibrillation, the median age was 65 years, and 89% were currently anticoagulated. Patients and clinicians ranked stroke prevention and avoiding severe bleeding as very important to anticoagulation decision making. Patients were more likely than clinicians to rank the ability to reduce anticoagulation dose if needed as very important (70.5% versus 43.6%; P<0.001). Conclusions There are considerable knowledge gaps regarding DOAC dosing in clinicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation, as well as significant differences in treatment dosing preferences between clinicians and patients.

Use of Social Media at Cardiovascular Congresses: Opportunities for Education and Dissemination.

Social Media includes different forms of online communication from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, podcasts, YouTube etc. and has advanced how information is exchanged. A notable use is engaging on Twitter at medical conferences, both for those attending the conference and the global audience who are not able to attend. It is also increasingly used as an educational tool similar to e-learning. The objective of this paper is to: 1) highlight the impact of using Twitter at cardiovascular congresses as an interactive platform for active learning as compared to passively listening to a presentation; 2) present perspectives from not only clinicians, researchers but also patients on how this information is interpreted; 3) provide recommendations for conference organizers for best practice live tweeting to share the information and knowledge beyond those in attendance; with potential for not only engagement but also educating our global community.

Use of patient-generated health data across healthcare settings: implications for health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The growing prevalence of chronic conditions requiring changes in lifestyle and at-home self-management has increased interest in and need for supplementing clinic visits with data generated by patients outside the clinic. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) support the ability to diagnose and manage chronic conditions, to improve health outcomes, and have the potential to facilitate more "connected health" between patients and their care teams; however, health systems have been slow to adopt PGHD use in clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed current and potential users of PGHD to catalog how PGHD is integrated into clinical care at an academic health center. The survey included questions about data type, method of collection, and clinical uses of PGHD. Current users were asked to provide detailed case studies of PGHD use in research and care delivery. RESULTS: Thirty-one respondents completed the survey. Seventeen individuals contributed detailed case studies of PGHD use across diverse areas of care, including behavioral health, metabolic and gastrointestinal conditions, musculoskeletal/progressive functional conditions, cognitive symptoms, and pain management. Sensor devices and mobile technologies were the most commonly reported platforms for collection. Clinicians and researchers involved in PGHD use cited the potential for PGHD to enhance care delivery and outcomes, but also indicated substantial barriers to more widespread PGHD adoption across healthcare systems. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey illustrate how PGHD is used in targeted areas of one healthcare system and provide meaningful insights that can guide health systems in supporting the widespread use of PGHD in care delivery.

mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices, mobile health apps, and geolocation technologies place the ability to track, monitor and report data in the individuals' hands - or on their bodies. These innovations create an opportunity for "connected health," where individuals collect data outside of the healthcare encounter and report it to care providers. Collection of such patient-generated health data (PGHD) has the potential to impact the delivery of healthcare through remote monitoring, and by allowing patients and healthcare teams to provide targeted and efficient care that aligns with the health status of individual patients. METHODS: To understand the value and barriers associated with clinical integration of PGHD we engaged a range of stakeholders, examining their perspectives and experiences of PGHD use. We conducted open-ended interviews with healthcare consumers (patients and care partners), healthcare providers, and healthcare administrators. Open recruitment and purposive sampling were utilized to identify participants that represented the breadth of PGHD use in research and clinical care. Interview guides focused on the value and barriers of PGHD use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS: Themes emerged around the value of PGHD to support care decisions and improve patient-provider communication and engagement, and the promise of applying PGHD to formal care pathways and measurement-based care. Significant barriers included data validity and actionability, and the burden of integrating PGHD into existing care processes. Interviews highlighted areas for future research to better understand how PGHD can advance care transformation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide rich context for understanding the experiences and needs of the individuals who interface with PGHD. Translating advances in technology and data tracking into successful clinical implementation requires understanding how stakeholders conceptualize and make use of PGHD, the potential value that PGHD can add to care, and the challenges that may limit PGHD's promise. Our results illustrate the value and challenges associated with health-system implementation of PGHD. Efforts to increase the scale and spread of PGHD will benefit from an approach that addresses the value and challenges PGHD brings to clinical care.

Designing, Conducting, Monitoring, and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials: Proceedings from a Multi-stakeholder Think Tank Meeting.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlined a framework for evaluating the possible use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making. This framework was created to facilitate studies that would generate high-quality RWE, including pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are randomized trials designed to inform clinical or policy decisions by assessing the real-world effectiveness of an intervention. There is general agreement among experts that the use of existing healthcare and patient-generated data holds promise for making randomized trials more efficient, less costly, and more generalizable. Yet the benefits of relying on real-world data sources must be weighed against difficulties with ensuring data integrity and completeness. Additionally, appropriately monitoring patient safety in randomized trials of new drugs using healthcare system data that might not be available in real time can be quite difficult. Recognizing that these and other concerns are critical to the development and acceptability of PCTs, a group of stakeholders from academia, industry, professional organizations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, and patient advocates discussed a path forward for PCT growth and sustainability at a think tank meeting entitled "Monitoring and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Streamlined Randomized Clinical Trials," which took place in January 2019 (Washington, DC). The goals of this meeting were to: (1) evaluate study design and methodological options specific to PCTs that have the potential to yield high-quality evidence; (2) discuss best practices to ensure data quality in PCTs; and (3) identify appropriate methods for study monitoring. Proceedings from the think tank meeting are summarized in this manuscript.

Patient-reported triggers of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Triggers for discrete atrial fibrillation (AF) events remain poorly studied and incompletely characterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe common triggers for AF and their relationships with patient characteristics. METHODS: We invited symptomatic, paroxysmal AF patients enrolled in the Health eHeart Study and through the patient-centered advocacy organization StopAfib.org to complete a questionnaire regarding their AF triggers and cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1295 participants with symptomatic AF, 957 (74%) reported triggers for episodes of AF. In comparison to participants without triggers and after multivariate adjustment, those reporting triggers had a 71% lower odds of congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.60; P = .001) and a >2-fold greater odds of a family history of AF (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.21-3.47; P = .008). The most commonly reported triggers were alcohol (35%), caffeine (28%), exercise (23%), and lack of sleep (21%). Multivariable models revealed that younger patients, women, and those with an AF family history more commonly experienced various triggers. Patients reported a median of 2 different triggers (interquartile range 1-3). Female sex, Hispanic ethnicity, obstructive sleep apnea, and a family history of AF were each associated with a greater number of AF triggers. Vagally mediated triggers tended to cluster together within individuals. CONCLUSION: The majority of patient-reported triggers are modifiable, potentially identifying accessible means to prevent and reduce AF episodes. Exploring the interactions between AF patient type, including underlying genetic differences, and common exposures may be fruitful areas of investigation.

Bystander Ethics and Good Samaritanism: A Paradox for Learning Health Organizations.

In 2012, a U.S. Institute of Medicine report called for a different approach to health care: "Left unchanged, health care will continue to underperform; cause unnecessary harm; and strain national, state, and family budgets." The answer, they suggested, would be a "continuously learning" health system. Ethicists and researchers urged the creation of "learning health organizations" that would integrate knowledge from patient-care data to continuously improve the quality of care. Our experience with an ongoing research study on atrial fibrillation-a trial known as IMPACT-AFib-gave us some insight into one of the challenges that will have to be dealt with in creating these organizations. Although the proposed educational intervention study placed no restrictions on what providers and health plans could do, the oversight team argued that the ethical principle of beneficence did not allow the researchers to be "bystanders" in relation to a control group receiving suboptimal care. In response, the researchers designed a "workaround" that allowed the project to go forward. We believe the experience suggests that what we call "bystander ethics" will create challenges for the kinds of quality improvement research that LHOs are designed to do.