Implementation Science to Achieve Equity in Heart Failure Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Guideline-directed medical therapies and guideline-directed nonpharmacological therapies improve quality of life and survival in patients with heart failure (HF), but eligible patients, particularly women and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, are often not treated with these therapies. Implementation science uses evidence-based theories and frameworks to identify strategies that facilitate uptake of evidence to improve health. In this scientific statement, we provide an overview of implementation trials in HF, assess their use of conceptual frameworks and health equity principles, and provide pragmatic guidance for equity in HF. Overall, behavioral nudges, multidisciplinary care, and digital health strategies increased uptake of therapies in HF effectively but did not include equity goals. Few HF studies focused on achieving equity in HF by engaging stakeholders, quantifying barriers and facilitators to HF therapies, developing strategies for equity informed by theory or frameworks, evaluating implementation measures for equity, and titrating strategies for equity. Among these HF equity studies, feasibility was established in using various educational strategies to promote organizational change and equitable care. A couple include ongoing randomized controlled pragmatic trials for HF equity. There is great need for additional HF implementation trials designed to promote delivery of equitable guideline-directed therapy.

Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Multiply robust estimation of principal causal effects with noncompliance and survival outcomes.

Treatment noncompliance and censoring are two common complications in clinical trials. Motivated by the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial, we develop methods for assessing treatment effects in the presence of treatment noncompliance with a right-censored survival outcome. We classify the participants into principal strata, defined by their joint potential compliance status under treatment and control. We propose a multiply robust estimator for the causal effects on the survival probability scale within each principal stratum. This estimator is consistent even if one, sometimes two, of the four working models-on the treatment assignment, the principal strata, censoring, and the outcome-is misspecified. A sensitivity analysis strategy is developed to address violations of key identification assumptions, the principal ignorability and monotonicity. We apply the proposed approach to the ADAPTABLE trial to study the causal effect of taking low- versus high-dosage aspirin on all-cause mortality and hospitalization from cardiovascular diseases.

Individualized clinical decisions within standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: Implications for consent.

Pragmatic clinical trials of standard-of-care interventions compare the relative merits of medical treatments already in use. Traditional research informed consent processes pose significant obstacles to these trials, raising the question of whether they may be conducted with alteration or waiver of informed consent. However, to even be eligible, such a trial in the United States must have no more than minimal research risk. We argue that standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials can be designed to ensure that they are minimal research risk if the random assignment of an intervention in a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate individualized, clinically motivated decision-making for each participant. Such a design will ensure that the patient-participants are not exposed to any risks beyond the clinical risks of the interventions, and thus, the trial will have minimal research risk. We explain the logic of this view by comparing three scenarios of standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: one with informed consent, one without informed consent, and one recently proposed design called Decision Architecture Randomization Trial. We then conclude by briefly showing that our proposal suggests a natural way to determine when to use an alteration versus a waiver of informed consent.

The dementia care study (D-CARE): Recruitment strategies and demographic characteristics of participants in a pragmatic randomized trial of dementia care.

INTRODUCTION: Pragmatic research studies that include diverse dyads of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their family caregivers are rare. METHODS: Community-dwelling dyads were recruited for a pragmatic clinical trial evaluating three approaches to dementia care. Four clinical trial sites used shared and site-specific recruitment strategies to enroll health system patients. RESULTS: Electronic health record (EHR) queries of patients with a diagnosis of dementia and engagement of their clinicians were the main recruitment strategies. A total of 2176 dyads were enrolled, with 80% recruited after the onset of the pandemic. PLWD had a mean age of 80.6 years (SD 8.5), 58.4% were women, and 8.8% were Hispanic/Latino, and 11.9% were Black/African American. Caregivers were mostly children of the PLWD (46.5%) or spouses/partners (45.2%), 75.8% were women, 9.4% were Hispanic/Latino, and 11.6% were Black/African American. DISCUSSION: Health systems can successfully enroll diverse dyads in a pragmatic clinical trial.

Embedding routine health care data in clinical trials: with great power comes great responsibility.

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are vital for medical progress. Unfortunately, 'traditional' RCTs are expensive and inherently slow. Moreover, their generalisability has been questioned. There is considerable overlap in routine health care data (RHCD) and trial-specific data. Therefore, integration of RHCD in an RCT has great potential, as it would reduce the effort and costs required to collect data, thereby overcoming some of the major downsides of a traditional RCT. However, use of RHCD comes with other challenges, such as privacy issues, as well as technical and practical barriers. Here, we give a current overview of related initiatives on national cardiovascular registries (Netherlands Heart Registration, Heart4Data), showcasing the interrelationships between and the relevance of the different registries for the practicing physician. We then discuss the benefits and limitations of RHCD use in the setting of a pragmatic RCT from a cardiovascular perspective, illustrated by a case study in heart failure.

Estimation of DAPT Study Treatment Effects in Contemporary Clinical Practice: Findings From the EXTEND-DAPT Study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in patient characteristics, changes in treatment algorithms, and advances in medical technology could each influence the applicability of older randomized trial results to contemporary clinical practice. The DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) found that longer-duration DAPT decreased ischemic events at the expense of greater bleeding, but subsequent evolution in stent technology and clinical practice may attenuate the benefit of prolonged DAPT in a contemporary population. We evaluated whether the DAPT Study population is different from a contemporary population of US patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention and estimated the treatment effect of extended-duration antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in this more contemporary cohort. METHODS: We compared the characteristics of drug-eluting stent-treated patients randomly assigned in the DAPT Study to a sample of more contemporary drug-eluting stent-treated patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2016 to June 2017. After linking trial and registry data, we used inverse-odds of trial participation weighting to account for patient and procedural characteristics and estimated a contemporary real-world treatment effect of 30 versus 12 months of DAPT after coronary stent procedures. RESULTS: The US drug-eluting stent-treated trial cohort included 8864 DAPT Study patients, and the registry cohort included 568 540 patients. Compared with the trial population, registry patients had more comorbidities and were more likely to present with myocardial infarction and receive 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents. After reweighting trial results to represent the registry population, there was no longer a significant effect of prolonged DAPT on reducing stent thrombosis (reweighted treatment effect: -0.40 [95% CI, -0.99% to 0.15%]), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (reweighted treatment effect, -0.52 [95% CI, -2.62% to 1.03%]), or myocardial infarction (reweighted treatment effect, -0.97% [95% CI, -2.75% to 0.18%]), but the increase in bleeding with prolonged DAPT persisted (reweighted treatment effect, 2.42% [95% CI, 0.79% to 3.91%]). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the patients and devices used in contemporary clinical practice compared with the DAPT Study were associated with the attenuation of benefits and greater harms attributable to prolonged DAPT duration. These findings limit the applicability of the average treatment effects from the DAPT Study in modern clinical practice.

Now is the time to fix the evidence generation system.

Despite enormous advances in biomedical science, corresponding improvements in health outcomes lag significantly. This is particularly true in the United States, where life expectancy trails far behind that of other high-income countries. In addition, substantial disparities in life expectancy and other health outcomes exist as a function of race, ethnicity, wealth, education, and geographic location. A major reformation of our national system for generating medical evidence-the clinical research enterprise-is needed to facilitate the translation of biomedical research into useful products and interventions. Currently, premarket systems for generating and evaluating evidence work reasonably well, but the postmarket phase is disaggregated and often fails to answer essential questions that must be addressed to provide optimal clinical care and public health interventions for all Americans. Solving these problems will require a focus on three key domains: (1) improving the integration of and access to high-quality data from traditional clinical trials, electronic health records, and personal devices and wearable sensors; (2) restructuring clinical research operations to support and incentivize the involvement of patients and frontline clinicians; and (3) articulating ethical constructs that enable responsible data sharing to support improved implementation. Finally, we must also address the systemic tendency to optimize individual components of the clinical research enterprise without considering the effects on the system as a whole. Overcoming suboptimization by creating incentives for integration and sharing will be essential to achieve more timely and equitable improvement in health outcomes.

Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?

Clinicians have good moral and professional reasons to contribute to pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs). We argue that clinicians have a defeasible duty to participate in this research that takes place in usual care settings and does not involve substantive deviation from their ordinary care practices. However, a variety of countervailing reasons may excuse clinicians from this duty in particular cases. Yet because there is a moral default in favor of participating, clinicians who wish to opt out of this research must justify their refusal. Reasons to refuse include that the trial is badly designed in some way, that the trial activities will violate the clinician's conscience, or that the trial will impose excessive burdens on the clinician.

Mayo-PACC: A parsimonious preclinical Alzheimer's disease cognitive composite comprised of public-domain measures to facilitate clinical translation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to define a Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer's disease Cognitive Composite (Mayo-PACC) that prioritizes parsimony and use of public domain measures to facilitate clinical translation. METHODS: Cognitively unimpaired participants aged 65 to 85 at baseline with amyloid PET imaging were included, yielding 428 amyloid negative (A-) and 186 amyloid positive (A+) individuals with 7 years mean follow-up. Sensitivity to amyloid-related cognitive decline was examined using slope estimates derived from linear mixed models (difference in annualized change across A+ and A- groups). We compared differences in rates of change between Mayo-PACC and other composites (A+ > A- indicating more significant decline in A+). RESULTS: All composites showed sensitivity to amyloid-related longitudinal cognitive decline (A+ > A- annualized change p < 0.05). Comparisons revealed that Mayo-PACC (AVLT sum of trials 1-5+6+delay, Trails B, animal fluency) showed comparable longitudinal sensitivity to other composites. DISCUSSION: Mayo-PACC performs similarly to other composites and can be directly translated to the clinic.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios. SUBJECTS: Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses. MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none). RESULTS: A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.

A first step towards best practice recommendations for the design and statistical analyses of pragmatic clinical trials: A modified Delphi approach.

AIM: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are randomized trials implemented through routine clinical practice, where design parameters of traditional randomized controlled trials are modified to increase generalizability. However, this may introduce statistical challenges. We aimed to identify these challenges and discuss possible solutions leading to best practice recommendations for the design and analysis of PCTs. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus among a panel of 11 experts in clinical trials and statistics. Statistical issues were identified in a focused literature review and aggregated with insights and possible solutions from experts collected through a series of survey iterations. Issues were ranked according to their importance. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were included and combined with experts' insight to generate a list of issues categorized into participants, recruiting sites, randomization, blinding and intervention, outcome (selection and measurement) and data analysis. Consensus was reached about the most important issues: risk of participants' attrition, heterogeneity of "usual care" across sites, absence of blinding, use of a subjective endpoint and data analysis aligned with the trial estimand. Potential issues should be anticipated and preferably be addressed in the trial protocol. The experts provided solutions regarding data collection and data analysis, which were considered of equal importance. DISCUSSION: A set of important statistical issues in PCTs was identified and approaches were suggested to anticipate and/or minimize these through data analysis. Any impact of choosing a pragmatic design feature should be gauged in the light of the trial estimand.

Ethics challenges in sharing data from pragmatic clinical trials.

Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trials data, and trial sponsors and journals are increasingly requiring it. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials presents ethical challenges related to the use of waivers or alterations of informed consent for some pragmatic clinical trials and corresponding limitations of informed consent to guide sharing decisions; the potential for data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials to present risks not only for individual patient-subjects, but also for health systems and the clinicians within them; sharing of data from electronic health records instead of data newly collected for research purposes; and researchers' limited capacity to control sensitive data within an electronic health record and potential implications of such limits for meeting obligations inherent to Certificates of Confidentiality. These challenges raise questions about the extent to which traditional research ethics governance structures are capable of guiding decisions about pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. This article identifies and examines these ethical challenges for pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. We suggest several areas for future empirical scholarship, including the need to identify patient and public attitudes regarding pragmatic clinical trial data sharing as well as to assess the demand for pragmatic clinical trial data and the correspondingly likely benefit of such sharing. Further conceptual work is also needed to explore how requirements to respect patient-subjects about whom data are shared in the context of pragmatic clinical trials should be understood, particularly in the absence of informed consent for initial research activities, and the appropriate balance between promoting the generation of socially valuable knowledge and respecting autonomy.

Interactions in clinical trials: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an explorative study of four randomized ICU trials on use of pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations. METHODS: This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses' tests of interaction. A p-value below .05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials.

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

Real-world evidence to support regulatory decision making: New or expanded medical product indications.

There is increasing interest in utilizing real-world data (RWD) to produce real-world evidence (RWE) on the benefits and risks of medical products that could support regulatory approval decisions. The field of pharmacoepidemiology has a long history of focusing on data and evidence that would now be termed "real-world," including evidence from healthcare claims, registries, and electronic health records. However, several emerging trends over the past decade are converging to support the use of these and other RWD sources for approval decisions, and there are several recent examples and ongoing research that demonstrate how RWE may be used to support regulatory approval of new or expanded indications. The goal of this article is to review the current landscape and future directions of the use of RWE in this context. This manuscript is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).

Incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials: Scientific, ethical, and policy considerations.

Pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly used to generate knowledge about real-world clinical interventions. However, they involve some distinctive ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, we examine a set of issues related to incentives and other payments to patients in pragmatic clinical trials. Although many of the ethical concerns related to incentives and payments in explanatory trials pertain to pragmatic clinical trials, the pragmatic features may introduce additional challenges. These include those related to the risk of incentives and payments undermining the scientific validity and social value of pragmatic clinical trials, the sources of data used in pragmatic clinical trials, and when the pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under waivers of consent. Based on our examination of these matters, we offer some preliminary recommendations regarding incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials, recognizing that additional data and experiences are needed to refine them.

Clinician engagement in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial.

BACKGROUND: ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is a pragmatic clinical trial examining high-dose versus low-dose aspirin among patients with cardiovascular disease. ADAPTABLE is leveraging novel approaches for clinical trial conduct to expedite study completion and reduce costs. One pivotal aspect of the trial conduct is maximizing clinician engagement. METHODS/RESULTS: Clinician engagement can be diminished by barriers including time limitations, insufficient research infrastructure, lack of research training, inadequate compensation for research activities, and clinician beliefs. We used several key approaches to boost clinician engagement such as empowering clinician champions, including a variety of clinicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, periodic newsletters and coordinated team celebrations, and deploying novel technological solutions. Specifically, some centers generated electronic health records-based best practice advisories and research dashboards. Future large pragmatic trials will benefit from standardization of the various clinician engagement strategies especially studies leveraging electronic health records-based approaches like research dashboards. Financial or academic "credit" for clinician engagement in clinical research may boost participation rates in clinical studies. CONCLUSION: Maximizing clinician engagement is important for the success of clinical trials; the strategies employed in the ADAPTABLE trial may serve as a template for future pragmatic studies.

Effects of aripiprazole long-acting injectable antipsychotic on hospitalization in recent-onset schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Recent-onset schizophrenia (ROS) represents a critical period that can greatly influence the clinical course of schizophrenia. The use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in this period is increasingly being considered as a first-line treatment option. Aripiprazole LAI (ALAI) is the newest of all LAI's available on the market, with limited data on its effects on hospitalization rates after first episode of schizophrenia. It was our goal to evaluate whether ALAI has an effect on hospitalization rates, number of bed days and clinical improvement in patients with ROS. METHODS: This mirror-image study included 138 inpatients suffering from schizophrenia. We collected sociodemographic data on all individuals, number of hospitalization days, hospitalization rates as well as Clinical Global Impression Scale-severity of illness (CGI-S) and Clinician-Rated Dimensions of Psychosis Symptom Severity (CRDPSS) scores at the initiation of ALAI and at the end of a 1 year follow up. RESULTS: Mean number of hospitalizations and hospitalization days in the year after starting ALAI significantly decreased compared to the year before (p = 0.005 and p < 0.001). Mean scores on both CGI and CRDPSS also significantly decreased after initiating ALAI (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that ALAI is an important therapeutic option in patients with ROS. It leads to reduced usage of hospital services, potentially reducing the socio-economic healthcare burden.