Printed educational materials directed at Ontario family physicians do not improve adherence to guideline recommendations for diabetes management: a pragmatic, factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN72772651].

BACKGROUND: Printed educational materials (PEMs) have long been used to inform clinicians on evidence-based practices. However, the evidence for their effects on patient care and outcomes is unclear. In Ontario, despite widely available clinical practice guidelines recommending antihypertensives and cholesterol-lowering agents for patients with diabetes, prescriptions remain low. We aimed to determine whether PEMs can influence physicians to intensify prescribing of these medications. METHODS: A pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial was designed to ascertain the effect of two PEM formats on physician prescribing: a postcard-sized message ("outsert") or a longer narrative article ("insert"). Ontario family physician practices (clusters) were randomly allocated to receive the insert, outsert, both or neither. Physicians were eligible if they were in active practice and their patients were included if they were over 65 years with a diabetes diagnosis; both were unaware of the trial. Administrative databases at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) were used to link patients to their physician and to analyse prescribing patterns at baseline and 1 year following PEM mailout. The primary outcome was intensification defined as the addition of a new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering agent, or dose increase of a current drug, measured at the patient level. Analyses were by intention-to-treat and accounted for the clustering of patients to physicians. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 4231 practices (39% of Ontario family physicians) with a total population of 185,526 patients (20% of patients with diabetes in Ontario primary care) to receive the insert, outsert, both, and neither; among these, 4118 practices were analysed (n = 1025, n = 1037, n = 1031, n = 1025, respectively). No significant treatment effect was found for the outsert (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.04) or the insert (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02). Percent of intensification in the four arms was similar (approximately 46%). Adjustment for physician characteristics (e.g., age, sex, practice location) had no impact on these findings. CONCLUSIONS: PEMs have no effect on physician's adherence to recommendations for the management of diabetes-related complications in Ontario. Further research should investigate the effect of other strategies to narrow this evidence-to-practice gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72772651 . Retrospectively registered 21 July 2005.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

An analysis of published trials found that current use of pragmatic trial labels is uninformative.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized trials labelled as "pragmatic" are attractive to funders, patients, and clinicians as the label implies that the results are directly applicable to clinical care. We examined how authors justify use of the label (e.g., by referring to one or more PRECIS [PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary]-2 domains). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed primary trial reports published 2014-2019, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and using the pragmatic label anywhere in the report. RESULTS: Among 415 trials, the label was justified by reference to at least one design element in 282 (68.0%); of these, 240 (85.1%) referenced trial characteristics that can be mapped to one or more of the PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly eligibility (91, 32.3%), setting (90, 31.9%), flexibility delivery (89, 31.6%), and organization (75, 26.6%); 42 (14.9%) referenced characteristics that are not PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly type of intervention/comparator (48, 17%), recruitment without consent (22, 7.8%), routinely collected data (22, 7.8%), and cluster randomization (20, 7.1%). Most reports referenced only one or two design elements. Overall, 9/415 (2.2%) provided PRECIS wheels. CONCLUSION: Current use of pragmatic labels is uninformative. Authors should clarify the decision the trial is intended to support and include a PRECIS-2 table to make the design transparent.

Establishing a core outcome set for mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) in children: study protocol for a rapid literature review, candidate outcomes survey, and Delphi surveys.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited metabolic diseases characterized by chronic, progressive multi-system manifestations with varying degrees of severity. Disease-modifying therapies exist to treat some types of MPS; however, they are not curative, underscoring the need to identify and evaluate co-interventions that optimize functioning, participation in preferred activities, and quality of life. A Canadian pediatric MPS registry is under development and may serve as a platform to launch randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions. To promote the standardized collection of patient/family-reported and clinical outcomes considered important to patients/families, health care providers (HCPs), and policymakers, the choice of outcomes to include in the registry will be informed by a core outcome set (COS). We aim to establish a patient-oriented COS for pediatric MPS using a multi-stakeholder approach. METHODS: In step 1 of the six-step process to develop the COS, we will identify relevant outcomes through a rapid literature review and candidate outcomes survey. A two-phase screening approach will be implemented to identify eligible publications, followed by extraction of outcomes and other pre-specified data elements. Simultaneously, we will conduct a candidate outcomes survey with children with MPS and their families to identify outcomes most important to them. In step 2, HCPs experienced in treating patients with MPS will be invited to review the list of outcomes generated in step 1 and identify additional clinically relevant outcomes. We will then ask patients/families, HCPs, and policymakers to rate the outcomes in a set of Delphi Surveys (step 3), and to participate in a subsequent consensus meeting to finalize the COS (step 4). Step 5 involves establishing a set of outcome measurement instruments for the COS. Finally, we will disseminate the COS to knowledge users (step 6). DISCUSSION: The proposed COS will inform the choice of outcomes to include in the MPS registry and, more broadly, promote the standardized collection of patient-oriented outcomes for pediatric MPS research. By involving patients/families from the earliest stage of the research, we will ensure that the COS will be relevant to those who will ultimately benefit from the research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021267531 , COMET.