Modeling Contraception and Pregnancy in Malawi: A Thanzi La Onse Mathematical Modeling Study.

Malawi has high unmet need for contraception with a costed national plan to increase contraception use. Estimating how such investments might impact future population size in Malawi can help policymakers understand effects and value of policies to increase contraception uptake. We developed a new model of contraception and pregnancy using individual-level data capturing complexities of contraception initiation, switching, discontinuation, and failure by contraception method, accounting for differences by individual characteristics. We modeled contraception scale-up via a population campaign to increase initiation of contraception (Pop) and a postpartum family planning intervention (PPFP). We calibrated the model without new interventions to the UN World Population Prospects 2019 medium variant projection of births for Malawi. Without interventions Malawi's population passes 60 million in 2084; with Pop and PPFP interventions. it peaks below 35 million by 2100. We compare contraception coverage and costs, by method, with and without interventions, from 2023 to 2050. We estimate investments in contraception scale-up correspond to only 0.9 percent of total health expenditure per capita though could result in dramatic reductions of current pressures of very rapid population growth on health services, schools, land, and society, helping Malawi achieve national and global health and development goals.

Socio-demographic factors associated with early antenatal care visits among pregnant women in Malawi: 2004-2016.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, the WHO published recommendations increasing the number of recommended antenatal care (ANC) visits per pregnancy from four to eight. Prior to the implementation of this policy, coverage of four ANC visits has been suboptimal in many low-income settings. In this study we explore socio-demographic factors associated with early initiation of first ANC contact and attending at least four ANC visits ("ANC4+") in Malawi using the Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS) data collected between 2004 and 2016, prior to the implementation of new recommendations. METHODS: We combined data from the 2004-5, 2010 and 2015-16 MDHS using Stata version 16. Participants included all women surveyed between the ages of 15-49 who had given birth in the five years preceding the survey. We conducted weighted univariate, bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis of the effects of each of the predictor variables on the binary endpoint of the woman attending at least four ANC visits and having the first ANC attendance within or before the four months of pregnancy (ANC4+). To determine whether a factor was included in the model, the likelihood ratio test was used with a statistical significance of P< 0.05 as the threshold. RESULTS: We evaluated data collected in surveys in 2004/5, 2010 and 2015/6 from 26386 women who had given birth in the five years before being surveyed. The median gestational age, in months, at the time of presenting for the first ANC visit was 5 (inter quartile range: 4-6). The proportion of women initiating ANC4+ increased from 21.3% in 2004-5 to 38.8% in 2015-16. From multivariate analysis, there was increasing trend in ANC4+ from women aged 20-24 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.27, 95%CI:1.05-1.53, P = 0.01) to women aged 45-49 years (aOR = 1.91, 95%CI:1.18-3.09, P = 0.008) compared to those aged 15-19 years. Women from richest socio-economic position ((aOR = 1.32, 95%CI:1.12-1.58, P<0.001) were more likely to demonstrate ANC4+ than those from low socio-economic position. Additionally, women who had completed secondary (aOR = 1.24, 95%CI:1.02-1.51, P = 0.03) and tertiary (aOR = 2.64, 95%CI:1.65-4.22, P<0.001) education were more likely to report having ANC4+ than those with no formal education. Conversely increasing parity was associated with a reduction in likelihood of ANC4+ with women who had previously delivered 2-3 (aOR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.63-0.86, P<0.001), 4-5 (aOR = 0.65, 95%CI:0.53-0.80, P<0.001) or greater than 6 (aOR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.47-0.79, <0.001) children being less likely to demonstrate ANC4+. CONCLUSION: The proportion of women reporting ANC4+ and of key ANC interventions in Malawi have increased significantly since 2004. However, we found that most women did not access the recommended number of ANC visits in Malawi, prior to the 2016 WHO policy change which may mean that women are less likely to undertake the 2016 WHO recommendation of 8 contacts per pregnancy. Additionally, our results highlighted significant variation in coverage according to key socio-demographic variables which should be considered when devising national strategies to ensure that all women access the appropriate frequency of ANC visits during their pregnancy.

New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation impact on 5-year clinical outcomes and costs.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery on long-term clinical outcomes and costs is not known. This subanalysis of the Veterans Affairs "Randomized On/Off Bypass Follow-up Study" compared 5-year outcomes and costs between patients with and without POAF. METHODS: Of the 2203 veterans in the study, 100 with pre-CABG atrial fibrillation (93) or missing data (7) were excluded (4.8%). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted outcomes were compared between new-onset POAF (n = 551) and patients without POAF (n = 1552). Five-year clinical outcomes included mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, comprising mortality, repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction), MACE subcomponents, stroke, and costs. A stringent P value of ≤.01 was required to identify statistical significance. RESULTS: Patients with POAF were older and had more complex comorbidities. Unadjusted 5-year all-cause mortality was 16.3% POAF versus 11.9% no-POAF, P = .008. Unadjusted cardiac-mortality was 7.4% versus 4.8%, P = .022. There were no differences between groups in any other unadjusted outcomes including MACE or stroke. After risk adjustment, there were no significant differences between groups in 5-year all-cause mortality (POAF odds ratio, 1.19; 99% confidence interval, 0.81-1.75) or cardiac mortality (odds ratio, 1.51, 99% confidence interval, 0.88-2.60). Adjusted first-year post-CABG costs were $15,300 greater for patients with POAF, but 2- through 5-year costs were similar. CONCLUSIONS: No 5-year risk-adjusted outcome differences were found between patients with and without POAF after CABG. Although first-year costs were greater in patients with POAF, this difference did not persist in subsequent years.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of TELEmedicine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (TELE-IBD).

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine has shown promise in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The objective of this study was to compare disease activity and quality of life (QoL) in a 1-year randomized trial of IBD patients receiving telemedicine vs. standard care. METHODS: Patients with worsening symptoms in the prior 2 years were eligible for randomization to telemedicine (monitoring via texts EOW or weekly) or standard care. The primary outcomes were the differences in change in disease activity and QoL between the groups; change in healthcare utilization among groups was a secondary aim. RESULTS: 348 participants were enrolled (117 control group, 115 TELE-IBD EOW, and 116 TELE-IBD weekly). 259 (74.4%) completed the study. Age was 38.9 ± 12.3 years, 56.6% were women, 91.9% were Caucasian, 67.9% had Crohn's disease (CD) and 42.5% had active disease at baseline. In CD, all groups experienced a decrease in disease activity (control -5.2 ± 5.0 to 3.7 ± 3.6, TELE-IBD EOW 4.7 ± 4.1 to 4.2 ± 3.9, and TELE-IBD weekly 4.2 ± 4.2 to 3.2 ± 3.4, p < 0.0001 for each of the groups) In UC, only controls had a significant decrease in disease activity (control 2.9 ± 3.1 to 1.4 ± 1.4, p = 0.01, TELE-IBD EOW 2.7 ± 3.1 to 1.7 ± 1.9, p = 0.35, and TELE-IBD Weekly 2.5 ± 2.5 to 2.0 ± 1.8, p = 0.31). QoL increased in all groups; the increase was significant only in TELE-IBD EOW (control 168.1 ± 34.0 to 179.3 ± 28.2, p = 0.06, TELE-IBD EOW 172.3 ± 33.1 to 181.5 ± 28.2, p = 0.03, and TELE-IBD Weekly 172.3 ± 34.5 to 179.2 ± 32.8, p = 0.10). Unadjusted and adjusted changes in disease activity and QoL were not significantly different among groups. Healthcare utilization increased in all groups. TELE-IBD weekly were less likely to have IBD-related hospitalizations and more likely to have non-invasive diagnostic tests and electronic encounters compared to controls; both TELE-IBD groups had decreased non-IBD related hospitalizations and increased telephone calls compared to controls. DISCUSSION: Disease activity and QoL, although improved in all participants, were not improved further through use of the TELE-IBD system. TELE-IBD participants experienced a decrease in hospitalizations with an associated increase in non-invasive diagnostic tests, telephone calls and electronic encounters. Research is needed to determine if TELE-IBD can be improved through patient engagement and whether it can decrease healthcare utilization by replacing standard care.

Costs Five Years After Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a common surgical treatment for ischemic heart disease. Little is known about the long-term costs of conducting the surgery on-pump or off-pump. METHODS: As part of the Randomized On/Off Bypass follow-up study, we followed 2,203 participants randomized to on-pump (n = 1,099) and off-pump (n = 1,104) CABG for 5 years using Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare administrative data. We examined annual costs through 5 years, standardized to 2016 dollars, using multivariate regression models, controlling for site and baseline patient factors. RESULTS: In the first year, including the CABG surgery, annual average costs were $66,599 (SE, $1,946) for the on-pump group and $70,552 (SE, $1,954) for the off-pump group. In years 2 to 5, average costs ranged from $15,000 to $20,000 per year. There was no significant difference between on-pump and off-pump across the 5 years. We explored differences among high-risk subgroups (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal dysfunction, ejection fraction < 35%, over age 70 years), and found no treatment assignment by time interactions, except for a nonsignificant trend in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the average costs of off-pump and on-pump CABG patients did not statistically differ. Costs do not favor one approach and the decision should be based on clinical risks, especially in subgroups. Future research is warranted to examine post-CABG costs and outcomes for diabetic patients over time.

Comparison of Outcomes and Costs Associated With Aspirin ± Clopidogrel After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Optimal antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains controversial. This study evaluated the role of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin and clopidogrel (DAPT) versus antiplatelet therapy using aspirin only (ASA) on post-CABG clinical outcomes and costs. In the Department of Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial, clopidogrel use after CABG was prospectively collected beginning in year 2 of this study to include 1,525 of the 2,203 original ROOBY patients who received aspirin after CABG. Discretionarily, surgeons after CABG administered either DAPT or ASA treatments. The ROOBY trial's primary 30-day composite (mortality or perioperative morbidity), 1-year composite (all-cause death, repeat revascularization, or nonfatal myocardial infarction), and costs were compared for these 2 strategies. Of the 1,525 subjects, 511 received DAPT and 1,014 received ASA. DAPT subjects, compared with ASA subjects, had lower rates of preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45% (78.8% vs 85.7%, p <0.001), on-pump CABG (36.6% vs 57.1%, p = 0.001), and endoscopic vein harvesting (30.0% vs 42.8%, p <0.001). ASA patients were more likely to have earlier aspirin administration and receive 325 versus 81 mg dosages. The 30-day composite outcome rate was significantly lower for DAPT patients compared with ASA patients (3.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.003), but the 1-year composite outcome was equal between the 2 groups (12.0% vs12.0%, p = 1.0). At 1 year, there were no cost differences between the 2 groups. Propensity analyses did not significantly alter the results. In conclusion, DAPT appeared safe and was associated with fewer 30-day adverse outcomes than aspirin only and with no 1-year outcome or cost differences.

TELEmedicine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (TELE-IBD): Design and implementation of randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprised of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, are chronic disorders characterized by worsening of symptoms followed by symptom-free periods. Symptoms have a profound negative impact on quality of life and are associated with increased health care utilization. Despite effective treatments, outcomes are suboptimal secondary to nonadherence, medication intolerance, inconsistent monitoring, poor patient knowledge and limited access to care. OBJECTIVES: Compare disease activity and quality of life over 1 year in a randomized trial of IBD patients receiving standard care versus telemedicine. METHODS: Patients evaluated at 3 IBD referral centers with worsening symptoms within the last 2 years are eligible for randomization to one of two interventions or standard care. The interventions consist of either every other week or weekly assessment of symptoms, side effects, weight and delivery of medication prompts and education via texts to the participant's mobile phone. Individualized alerts and action plans are created on a secure portal. Participants in the standard care group undergo routine and urgent follow-up visits and telephone calls. The primary outcomes group comparisons of changes in disease activity and quality of life scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Methods such as telemedicine are needed to improve monitoring, adherence, self-efficacy, and patient knowledge in IBD. If effective, telemedicine should decrease symptoms, improve quality of life, and decrease health care utilization. The burden associated with use of telemedicine for patients and providers needs to be assessed. The trial is ongoing and will be completed in July 2016.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation impacts on costs and one-year clinical outcomes: the Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass Trial.

BACKGROUND: New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is associated with worse in-hospital morbidity and mortality, extended hospital stays, and higher costs. Beyond the initial hospital discharge, the cost and outcomes of POAF have not been well studied. METHODS: For CABG patients with and without new-onset POAF, a retrospective propensity-matched, multivariable regression analysis was performed to compare 1-year outcomes (including health-related quality of life [HRQoL] scores and mortality rates) and costs (standardized to 2010 dollars). Regression models controlled for site and patient factors, with propensity matching used to adjust for differences in POAF versus no-POAF patients' risk profiles. RESULTS: Using the existing CABG trial database, 2,096 patient records were analyzed, including POAF patients (n = 549) versus no-POAF patients (n = 1,547). For the index CABG hospitalization, POAF patients had longer postoperative length of stay (+3.9 days) and higher discharge costs (+$13,993) than no-POAF patients. At 1 year, POAF patients had more than twice the adjusted odds of dying (p < 0.01), with higher 1-year total cumulative costs. This 1-year cost difference (+$15,593) was largely attributable to hospital-based costs during the index surgery hospitalization. There was no difference in 1-year HRQoL scores (or HRQoL score changes) between POAF patients and no-POAF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no-POAF patients, POAF patients had higher discharge and 1-year costs along with higher 1-year mortality rates, but no differences were observed in 1-year HRQoL scores. Additional research appears warranted to improve the longer-term survival rates for POAF CABG patients, targeting future POAF-specific postdischarge interventions.

Comparing off-pump and on-pump clinical outcomes and costs for diabetic cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have documented an off-pump over on-pump advantage for high-risk patients, including diabetic patients. Randomized trials have not confirmed this advantage. The VA Randomization On Versus Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial randomly assigned 2,203 coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients at 18 sites to either on-pump (n=1,099) or off-pump (n=1,104) procedures. An a priori ROOBY aim was to evaluate treatment impact on diabetic patients. METHODS: Actively treated diabetic patients (n=835, receiving oral hypoglycemic or insulin medications) received off-pump CABG (n=402) or on-pump CABG (n=433). The primary ROOBY trial endpoints were a short-term composite (30-day operative death or major complications) and a 1-year composite (death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Secondary ROOBY endpoints included 1-year all-cause death, 1-year graft patency, 1-year changes from baseline in neurocognitive status and health-related quality of life, and costs. RESULTS: Diabetic patients' risk factors at baseline were balanced across treatments. For diabetic patients, the primary short-term composite outcome rate showed a worse trend for off-pump (8.0%) than on-pump (3.9%, p=0.013), with no difference in the 1-year primary composite outcome or 1-year death rate. One-year patency was 83.1% off-pump versus 88.4% on-pump (p=0.004). No differences were found in neurocognitive, health-related quality of life, discharge cost, and 1-year cumulative cost. CONCLUSIONS: Concordant with the ROOBY trial's overall findings, off-pump CABG yielded no advantage over on-pump CABG for actively treated diabetic patients. The 1-year graft patency was lower and the short-term composite trended higher for off-pump CABG, with no other significant outcome or cost differences.

On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multisite trial.

BACKGROUND: Questions have been raised about the costs and outcomes for patients receiving on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. As part of the Department of Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) multisite trial, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare on-pump versus off-pump patients' quality-adjusted life-years and costs at 1 year. METHODS: One-year outcomes and costs (standardized to 2010 dollars) were estimated in multivariate regression models, controlling for site and baseline patient factors. The 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness analysis ratio with 95% confidence intervals was calculated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Eighteen centers randomly assigned 2,203 participants to on-pump (n=1,099) versus off-pump (n=1,104) coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Both groups' quality of life improved significantly after surgery (p<0.01) compared with baseline, but no differences were found between treatment groups. Adjusted cost of the index coronary artery bypass graft surgery hospitalization was $36,046 on-pump and $36,536 off-pump (p=0.16). At 1 year, on-pump adjusted cost was $56,023 versus $59,623 off-pump (p=0.046). Off-pump-to-on-pump conversions after first distal anastomosis (4.8%) had significantly higher 1-year costs. Excluding conversions, there were no significant differences between treatments for index hospitalization or 1-year total costs. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery was more expensive than on-pump when late off-pump-to-on-pump conversions were included. Excluding late conversions, there was no difference in quality-adjusted life-years or costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00032630; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00032630.

Resource use and costs of treatment with anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents: results of the WATCH trial economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial revealed no significant differences among 1587 symptomatic heart failure patients randomized to warfarin, clopidogrel, or aspirin in time to all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We compared within-trial medical resource use and costs between treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assigned country-specific costs to medical resources incurred during follow-up. Annualized rates of hospitalizations, inpatient and outpatient procedures, and emergency department visits did not differ significantly between groups. Annualized total costs averaged $5901 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4776-$7520) for the aspirin group, $5646 (95% CI, $4903-$6584) for the clopidogrel group, and $5830 (95% CI, $4838-$7400) for the warfarin group. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with clinical findings, our analyses did not identify significant cost differences between treatments.

A study design to assess the safety and efficacy of on-pump versus off-pump coronary bypass grafting: the ROOBY trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1960s, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG-only) procedures were traditionally performed using a heart-lung machine on an arrested heart (on-pump). Over the past decade, an increasing number CABG-only procedures were performed on a beating heart (off-pump). Advocates of the off-pump approach expect to reduce many of the adverse side effects related to using the heart-lung machine, while advocates for the on-pump procedure raise concerns related to graft patency rates and long-term event-free survival for the off-pump technique. PURPOSE: The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program funded a randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing the clinical and resource-related outcomes following on-pump versus off-pump techniques for veterans undergoing a non-emergent CABG-only procedure. The planning committee was faced with several critically important challenges to assure feasibility of study costs and required sample size; generalizability to non-VA surgical practices; and comparability of clinically meaningful results. These challenges are discussed. METHODS: This study is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single blinded (patient) clinical trial that compares on-pump and off-pump techniques for veterans requiring non-emergent CABG-only procedures. There will be 2200 patients randomized at 17 VA Medical Centers when the five-year recruitment period ends on 15 April 2007. There are two primary objectives: a short-term objective to assess the immediate impact of the two techniques on 30-day mortality/morbidity and a long-term objective to assess one-year mortality/morbidity. Major secondary outcomes are one-year graft patency rates and change in neuropsychological assessments from baseline to one year. All patients are assessed at 30 days post-surgery or discharge from the hospital, whichever is latest, and at one-year post-surgery. RESULTS: During planning, several key issues had to be decided. These included 1) choosing primary objectives: a short-term (30-day) and a long-term (one-year) objective were chosen; 2) choosing primary outcome measures: composite measures were selected to ensure sufficient end-points; 3) standardization of surgical techniques: minimal standardization required but guidelines and continuing discussions on both techniques provided; 4) establishing criteria for surgeons and residents for participation: surgeons required to have completed 20 off-pump procedures prior to doing study procedures and residents, in presence of study surgeon, capable of doing either procedure; 5) identifying metrics of cognitive dysfunction sensitive to treatment: a neuropshychologist hired who centrally monitors cognitive functioning testing; and 6) blinding participants of surgical procedure: attempt to blind participants. LIMITATIONS: Areas of concern are whether all surgeons sufficiently experienced on the off-pump procedure, should residents have been allowed to do study surgeries, should techniques have been standardized more and were the best neurocognitive tests selected. CONCLUSION: The study design presented allows for a balanced and fair assessment of the on-pump and off-pump CABG procedures across a diversity of clinical outcomes and resource use metrics. Its results have the potential to influence clinical cardiac surgical practice in the future.

What is the economic value of digoxin therapy in congestive heart failure patients? Results from the DIG trial.

BACKGROUND: The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) clinical train randomized 6800 congestive heart failure patients (ejection fraction > or =45%) to a daily regimen of either digoxin or placebo. At 37 months average follow-up, patients in both groups had similar mortality. We determined the incremental costs associated with the use of digoxin in this high-risk population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations and medical costs were compared by using a societal perspective. Hospitalizations were assigned Medicare DRG codes by using descriptive information from the clinical trial. Digoxin use was assigned a cost by using the 1998 average wholesale price as reported by Red Book. On average, there were fewer hospitalizations in digoxin-treated patients. These patients had lower heart failure yet higher non-heart failure hospitalization costs than placebo patients. Digoxin therapy was cost saving versus placebo in only 27% of 1000 bootstrap samples using Medicare costs (mean costs 12,648 dollars vs. 12,362 dollars) and in 44% of samples using commercial carrier costs (mean costs 17,400 dollars vs. 17,306 dollars). How ever, digoxin was cost saving in >50% of samples for several higher-risk patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of digoxin therapy versus placebo was associated with reduced hospitalizations. Moreover, the resulting cost-savings could cover the costs of this inexpensive therapy in selected subgroups of higher-risk patients. In the remainder, there is a modest cost associated with this therapy.

Enrollment in clinical trials according to patients race: experience from the VA Cooperative Studies Program (1975-2000).

BACKGROUND: Racial distribution of clinical trial participants is important because results from these studies serve to define evidence-based practice. This report summarizes the experience of the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) in enrolling white, black and Hispanic patients. METHODS: An analysis of enrollment in randomized controlled trials conducted by VA CSP between 1975 and 2000. A standardized enrollment ratio for each trial was calculated by dividing the observed number of enrolled white patients in the trial by the expected number of eligible white patients based on the proportion of white patients hospitalized at the enrolling VA Medical Centers. RESULTS: 138 VA CSP clinical trials were initiated between 1975 and 2000, 83 contained information on race for 71,463 patients. Overall, 76% of enrolled patients were white, 20% were black, and 4% were Hispanic. Based on standardized enrollment ratios, 60 of the 83 trials had 95% confidence intervals that excluded 1.0. Of these, 32 studies enrolled more white patients than expected and 28 enrolled more Black and/or Hispanic patients than expected based on the racial distribution of patients hospitalized at sites involved in the trials. When trials were separated by intervention type, 13 of the 19 trials that had an invasive arm enrolled fewer minority patients than expected. In trials that targeted diseases that affect minority populations to a greater degree than whites (diabetes, hypertension and end stage renal disease), 11 of the 14 trials enrolled more minority patients than expected. CONCLUSIONS: There were several trials that enrolled either more or less minority patients than expected based on patients hospitalized at study sites. Trials that included an invasive arm enrolled fewer minority participants than expected. Trials that involve invasive therapies may wish to adopt special recruitment strategies to reach minority populations.

The role of the data coordinating center in the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple trial (LST) begun in 1990 as a collaboration between the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP). Its primary objective was to determine whether digitalis had beneficial, harmful, or no effect on total mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and an ejection fraction < or =0.45. The Perry Point VA CSP Coordinating Center served as the trial's data coordinating center (DCC). The DCC was involved in all phases of the study from planning and design, organization and start-up, and patient recruitment and follow-up through closeout, final analyses, and manuscript preparation. While DCC responsibilities for an LST are basically the same as for other multicenter randomized clinical trials, their size and the inclusion of many inexperienced research sites can add a complexity that the DCC must be prepared to handle from the beginning. This paper describes the role of the DCC in the DIG trial.

Overview of the DIG trial.

Congestive heart failure is a major public health problem in the United States, Canada, and other Western countries. The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality and on hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.45 with normal sinus rhythm. It was designed as a large simple trial. There were 6800 patients entered into the main study over a 31.5-month recruitment period at 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. All patients were followed for a minimum of 28 months. In order for this study to succeed, many groups had to work together successfully. In this supplement, we present practical aspects of organizing and conducting a large simple trial such as DIG.

The use of regional coordinating centers in large clinical trials: the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple clinical trial that involved 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. In order to encourage participation by Canadian investigators, to provide additional help to what were expected to be largely research-inexperienced investigators in Canada, and to provide the study's data coordinating center with resources in Canada to deal with potentially different rules, regulations, and cultural differences, regional coordinating centers were established in four regions of Canada: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada. Canadian centers recruited significantly better than their U.S. counterparts and had slightly better retention and follow-up. While it is not possible to declare that the regional coordinating centers were responsible for this improvement, it is believed that these regional centers did play a role. This role included being able to identify investigators who could be expected to do well, providing one-on-one training and instruction to investigators, and being able to solve problems and implement change in the relatively fewer centers in their regions. The regional coordinating center also reduced the intensity of the workload on the data coordinating center by serving as the primary point of contact for Canadian investigators. The use of regional coordinating centers in studies with a large number of participating centers is highly recommended.

The role of the data coordinating center in the IRB review and approval process: the DIG trial experience.

Before any clinical trial can begin to recruit patients, participating clinical centers must obtain approval from their institutional review board (IRB). When studies are federally funded, such as by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), centers must also have or obtain a federal compliance agreement from the Office of Human Research Protections (formerly the Office for Protection from Research Risks [OPRR]). The Digitalis Investigation Group trial was a large, international, double-blind, DHHS-funded randomized trial on the effect of digoxin on mortality in heart failure. Due to the anticipated number of centers (>200), the study's data coordinating center (DCC) was requested to assume additional responsibilities that included: (1) acting as a liaison between the OPRR and all study centers; (2) reviewing and correcting all assurance statements before submission to the OPRR; (3) reviewing and approving all centers' informed consent forms; and (4) helping the many research-inexperienced centers to establish IRBs or to locate an IRB in their region that would accept IRB responsibility for them. Although a heavy burden was placed on the DCC, the IRB and OPRR approval process was probably shortened by many weeks at those centers not already possessing a federal compliance agreement. This enabled the study to be completed on schedule and within budget.

Lessons learned from the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was the first large simple trial conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A large simple trial is a major undertaking. Simplification at the sites requires careful planning and discipline. Lessons learned from the DIG trial were: (1) keep a large simple trial very simple and keep all study procedures very simple; (2) ancillary studies are important and can complement a large simple trial but require careful advanced planning; (3) anticipate special needs when shipping study drugs internationally; (4) regional coordinating centers can be very useful; (5) recruit as many capable sites as possible; (6) provide research-inexperienced sites/investigators with extra help to obtain federalwide assurance statements from the Office for Human Research Protections and institutional review board approvals; (7) adequately reimburse sites for the work completed; (8) maintain investigator enthusiasm; (9) monitor the slow performers and sites with numerous personnel changes; (10) choose an endpoint that is easy to ascertain; (11) keep the trial simple for participants; and (12) plan early for closeout and for activities between the end of the trial and publication of results.