Testosterone Treatment and Fractures in Men with Hypogonadism.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone treatment in men with hypogonadism improves bone density and quality, but trials with a sufficiently large sample and a sufficiently long duration to determine the effect of testosterone on the incidence of fractures are needed. METHODS: In a subtrial of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that assessed the cardiovascular safety of testosterone treatment in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, we examined the risk of clinical fracture in a time-to-event analysis. Eligible men were 45 to 80 years of age with preexisting, or high risk of, cardiovascular disease; one or more symptoms of hypogonadism; and two morning testosterone concentrations of less than 300 ng per deciliter (10.4 nmol per liter), in fasting plasma samples obtained at least 48 hours apart. Participants were randomly assigned to apply a testosterone or placebo gel daily. At every visit, participants were asked if they had had a fracture since the previous visit. If they had, medical records were obtained and adjudicated. RESULTS: The full-analysis population included 5204 participants (2601 in the testosterone group and 2603 in the placebo group). After a median follow-up of 3.19 years, a clinical fracture had occurred in 91 participants (3.50%) in the testosterone group and 64 participants (2.46%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.97). The fracture incidence also appeared to be higher in the testosterone group for all other fracture end points. CONCLUSIONS: Among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, testosterone treatment did not result in a lower incidence of clinical fracture than placebo. The fracture incidence was numerically higher among men who received testosterone than among those who received placebo. (Funded by AbbVie and others; TRAVERSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03518034.).

Pulmonary Hypertension and Anastrozole (PHANTOM): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Rationale: Inhibition of aromatase with anastrozole reduces pulmonary hypertension in experimental models. Objectives: We aimed to determine whether anastrozole improved the 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD) at 6 months in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial of anastrozole in subjects with PAH at seven centers. Eighty-four postmenopausal women with PAH and men with PAH were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive anastrozole 1 mg or placebo by mouth daily, stratified by sex using permuted blocks of variable sizes. All subjects and study staff were masked. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in 6MWD at 6 months. By intention-to-treat analysis, we estimated the treatment effect of anastrozole using linear regression models adjusted for sex and baseline 6MWD. Assuming 10% loss to follow-up, we anticipated having 80% power to detect a difference in the change in 6MWD of 22 meters. Measurements and Main Results: Forty-one subjects were randomized to placebo and 43 to anastrozole, and all received the allocated treatment. Three subjects in the placebo group and two in the anastrozole group discontinued the study drug. There was no significant difference in the change in 6MWD at 6 months (placebo-corrected treatment effect, -7.9 m; 95% confidence interval, -32.7 to 16.9; P = 0.53). There was no difference in adverse events between the groups. Conclusions: Anastrozole did not show a significant effect on 6MWD compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with PAH and in men with PAH. Anastrozole was safe and did not have adverse effects. Clinical trial registered with www.clincialtrials.gov (NCT03229499).

Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia on the ability to walk in older adults undergoing surgery for hip fracture have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized superiority trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia in previously ambulatory patients 50 years of age or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive spinal or general anesthesia. The primary outcome was a composite of death or an inability to walk approximately 10 ft (3 m) independently or with a walker or cane at 60 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death within 60 days, delirium, time to discharge, and ambulation at 60 days. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled; 795 were assigned to receive spinal anesthesia and 805 to receive general anesthesia. The mean age was 78 years, and 67.0% of the patients were women. A total of 666 patients (83.8%) assigned to spinal anesthesia and 769 patients (95.5%) assigned to general anesthesia received their assigned anesthesia. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population for whom data were available, the composite primary outcome occurred in 132 of 712 patients (18.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and 132 of 733 (18.0%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.83). An inability to walk independently at 60 days was reported in 104 of 684 patients (15.2%) and 101 of 702 patients (14.4%), respectively (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36), and death within 60 days occurred in 30 of 768 (3.9%) and 32 of 784 (4.1%), respectively (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.57). Delirium occurred in 130 of 633 patients (20.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and in 124 of 629 (19.7%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia for hip-fracture surgery in older adults was not superior to general anesthesia with respect to survival and recovery of ambulation at 60 days. The incidence of postoperative delirium was similar with the two types of anesthesia. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; REGAIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02507505.).

Long-term Outcomes with Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal versus general anesthesia on long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study tested the hypothesis that spinal anesthesia is associated with better long-term survival and functional recovery than general anesthesia. METHODS: A prespecified analysis was conducted of long-term outcomes of a completed randomized superiority trial that compared spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture repair. Participants included previously ambulatory patients 50 yr of age or older at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1 to spinal or general anesthesia, stratified by sex, fracture type, and study site. Outcome assessors and investigators involved in the data analysis were masked to the treatment arm. Outcomes included survival at up to 365 days after randomization (primary); recovery of ambulation among 365-day survivors; and composite endpoints for death or new inability to ambulate and death or new nursing home residence at 365 days. Patients were included in the analysis as randomized. RESULTS: A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled between February 12, 2016, and February 18, 2021; 795 were assigned to spinal anesthesia, and 805 were assigned to general anesthesia. Among 1,599 patients who underwent surgery, vital status information at or beyond the final study interview (conducted at approximately 365 days after randomization) was available for 1,427 (89.2%). Survival did not differ by treatment arm; at 365 days after randomization, there were 98 deaths in patients assigned to spinal anesthesia versus 92 deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.44, P = 0.59). Recovery of ambulation among patients who survived a year did not differ by type of anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio for spinal vs. general, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.14; P = 0.31). Other outcomes did not differ by treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes were similar with spinal versus general anesthesia.

Methods for the estimation of direct and indirect vaccination effects by combining data from individual- and cluster-randomized trials.

Both individually and cluster randomized study designs have been used for vaccine trials to assess the effects of vaccine on reducing the risk of disease or infection. The choice between individually and cluster randomized designs is often driven by the target estimand of interest (eg, direct versus total), statistical power, and, importantly, logistic feasibility. To combat emerging infectious disease threats, especially when the number of events from one single trial may not be adequate to obtain vaccine effect estimates with a desired level of precision, it may be necessary to combine information across multiple trials. In this article, we propose a model formulation to estimate the direct, indirect, total, and overall vaccine effects combining data from trials with two types of study designs: individual-randomization and cluster-randomization, based on a Cox proportional hazards model, where the hazard of infection depends on both vaccine status of the individual as well as the vaccine status of the other individuals in the same cluster. We illustrate the use of the proposed model and assess the potential efficiency gain from combining data from multiple trials, compared to using data from each individual trial alone, through two simulation studies, one of which is designed based on a cholera vaccine trial previously carried out in Matlab, Bangladesh.

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

Bringing data monitoring committee charters into the sunlight.

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia. DESIGN: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505). SETTING: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. INTERVENTION: Spinal or general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups. LIMITATION: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.

A platform trial design for preventive vaccines against Marburg virus and other emerging infectious disease threats.

BACKGROUND: The threat of a possible Marburg virus disease outbreak in Central and Western Africa is growing. While no Marburg virus vaccines are currently available for use, several candidates are in the pipeline. Building on knowledge and experiences in the designs of vaccine efficacy trials against other pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, we develop designs of randomized Phase 3 vaccine efficacy trials for Marburg virus vaccines. METHODS: A core protocol approach will be used, allowing multiple vaccine candidates to be tested against controls. The primary objective of the trial will be to evaluate the effect of each vaccine on the rate of virologically confirmed Marburg virus disease, although Marburg infection assessed via seroconversion could be the primary objective in some cases. The overall trial design will be a mixture of individually and cluster-randomized designs, with individual randomization done whenever possible. Clusters will consist of either contacts and contacts of contacts of index cases, that is, ring vaccination, or other transmission units. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint will be analysed as a time-to-event outcome. A vaccine will be considered successful if its estimated efficacy is greater than 50% and has sufficient precision to rule out that true efficacy is less than 30%. This will require approximately 150 total endpoints, that is, cases of confirmed Marburg virus disease, per vaccine/comparator combination. Interim analyses will be conducted after 50 and after 100 events. Statistical analysis of the trial will be blended across the different types of designs. Under the assumption of a 6-month attack rate of 1% of the participants in the placebo arm for both the individually and cluster-randomized populations, the most likely sample size is about 20,000 participants per arm. CONCLUSION: This event-driven design takes into the account the potentially sporadic spread of Marburg virus. The proposed trial design may be applicable for other pathogens against which effective vaccines are not yet available.

Data and Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials.

To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.

Blinding in Clinical Trials for Chronic Liver Diseases.

Within the field of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial is considered the most efficient means of simultaneously assessing the efficacy and safety of a medical therapy in a single trial. While many RCTs are conducted without blinding (open label), it is rare to encounter a blinded trial that does not randomize its subjects. Clinical trials for chronic liver diseases have adopted many of the practices set forth by RCTs in other chronic diseases, but blinding has often been difficult to properly implement. This review examines the rationale for blinding, common challenges to successful blinding, different mechanisms of unintentional unblinding in clinical trials for viral hepatitis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and recommendations for blinding and design in future trials of treatments for liver disease.

AIDS and COVID: A tale of two pandemics and the role of statisticians.

The world has experienced three global pandemics over the last half-century: HIV/AIDS, H1N1, and COVID-19. HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 are still with us and have wrought extensive havoc worldwide. There are many differences between these two infections and their global impacts, but one thing they have in common is the mobilization of scientific resources to both understand the infection and develop ways to combat it. As was the case with HIV, statisticians have been in the forefront of scientists working to understand transmission dynamics and the natural history of infection, determine prognostic factors for severe disease, and develop optimal study designs to assess therapeutics and vaccines.

Prediction of post-vaccination Guillain-Barré syndrome using data from a passive surveillance system.

PURPOSE: Severe adverse events (AEs), such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) occur rarely after influenza vaccination. We identify highly associated AEs with GBS and develop prediction models for GBS using the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports following trivalent influenza vaccination (FLU3). METHODS: This study analyzed 80 059 reports from the US VAERS between 1990 and 2017. Several AEs were identified as highly associated with GBS and were used to develop the prediction model. Some common and mild AEs that were suspected to be underreported when GBS occurred simultaneously were removed from the final model. The analyses were validated using European influenza vaccine AEs data from EudraVigilance. RESULTS: Of the 80 059 reports, 1185 (1.5%) were annotated as GBS related. Twenty-four AEs were identified as having strong association with GBS. The full prediction model, using age, sex, and all 24 AEs achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 85.4% (90% CI: [83.8%, 86.9%]). After excluding the nine (e.g., pruritus, rash, injection site pain) likely underreported AEs, the final AUC became 77.5% (90% CI: [75.5%, 79.6%]). Two hundred and one (0.25%) reports were predicted as of high risk of GBS (predicted probability >25%) and 84 actually developed GBS. CONCLUSION: The prediction performance demonstrated the potential of developing risk-prediction models utilizing the VAERS cohort. Excluding the likely underreported AEs sacrificed some prediction power but made the model more interpretable and feasible. The high absolute risk of even a small number of AE combinations suggests the promise of GBS prediction within the VAERS dataset.

Presenting Risks and Benefits: Helping the Data Monitoring Committee Do Its Job.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs), or data and safety monitoring boards, protect clinical trial participants by conducting benefit-risk assessments during the course of a clinical trial. These evaluations may be improved by broader access to data and more effective analyses and presentation. Data monitoring committees should have access to all data, including efficacy data, at each interim review. The DMC reports should include graphical presentations that summarize benefits and harms in efficient ways. Benefit-risk assessments should include summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus. This article provides examples of graphical summaries that integrate benefits and harms, and proposes that such summaries become standard in DMC reports.

Clinical trials in the time of a pandemic.

The first rumblings about a new coronavirus spreading in China were heard in January 2020. By the end of that month, the World Health Organization, recognizing the severity of the disease and the potential for global spread, had declared a public health emergency. By February 2020, cases had been identified in multiple countries, clinical trials of treatments with some biological plausibility had begun in China, and the initial steps of vaccine development were underway. In mid-March, by which time countries around the world were experiencing rapidly increasing numbers of cases and deaths, the World Health Organization categorized the outbreak as a pandemic. This new coronavirus was designated SARS-COV-2 in recognition of its similarity to the coronavirus responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2002-2003. The race is on to develop treatments that can mitigate the severe consequences of infection and vaccines that can prevent infection and/or diminish the severity of disease in those who do get infected. Many challenges face these development efforts. Some are similar to those faced in the past; others are new. The urgency of finding ways to treat, and ultimately prevent, the consequences of this new and potentially deadly infection has led to unprecedented focus on clinical trials.

Protocol adherence rates in superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trials published in high impact medical journals.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Noninferiority clinical trials are susceptible to false confirmation of noninferiority when the intention-to-treat principle is applied in the setting of incomplete trial protocol adherence. The risk increases as protocol adherence rates decrease. The objective of this study was to compare protocol adherence and hypothesis confirmation between superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trials published in three high impact medical journals. We hypothesized that noninferiority trials have lower protocol adherence and greater hypothesis confirmation. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using published clinical trial data. We searched PubMed for active control, two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trials published in JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet between 2007 and 2017. The primary exposure was trial type, superiority versus noninferiority, as determined by the hypothesis testing framework of the primary trial outcome. The primary outcome was trial protocol adherence rate, defined as the number of randomized subjects receiving the allocated intervention as described by the trial protocol and followed to primary outcome ascertainment (numerator), over the total number of subjects randomized (denominator). Hypothesis confirmation was defined as affirmation of noninferiority or the alternative hypothesis for noninferiority and superiority trials, respectively. RESULTS: Among 120 superiority and 120 noninferiority trials, median and interquartile protocol adherence rates were 91.5 [81.4-96.7] and 89.8 [83.6-95.2], respectively; P = 0.47. Hypothesis confirmation was observed in 107/120 (89.2%) of noninferiority and 64/120 (53.3%) of superiority trials, risk difference (95% confidence interval): 35.8 (25.3-46.3), P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Protocol adherence rates are similar between superiority and noninferiority trials published in three high impact medical journals. Despite this, we observed greater hypothesis confirmation among noninferiority trials. We speculate that publication bias, lenient noninferiority margins and other sources of bias may contribute to this finding. Further study is needed to identify the reasons for this observed difference.

The TiME Trial: A Fully Embedded, Cluster-Randomized, Pragmatic Trial of Hemodialysis Session Duration.

BACKGROUND: Data from clinical trials to inform practice in maintenance hemodialysis are limited. Incorporating randomized trials into dialysis clinical care delivery should help generate practice-guiding evidence, but the feasibility of this approach has not been established. METHODS: To develop approaches for embedding trials into routine delivery of maintenance hemodialysis, we performed a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial demonstration project, the Time to Reduce Mortality in ESRD (TiME) trial, evaluating effects of session duration on mortality (primary outcome) and hospitalization rate. Dialysis facilities randomized to the intervention adopted a default session duration ≥4.25 hours (255 minutes) for incident patients; those randomized to usual care had no trial-driven approach to session duration. Implementation was highly centralized, with no on-site research personnel and complete reliance on clinically acquired data. We used multiple strategies to engage facility personnel and participating patients. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 7035 incident patients from 266 dialysis units. We discontinued the trial at a median follow-up of 1.1 years because of an inadequate between-group difference in session duration. For the primary analysis population (participants with estimated body water ≤42.5 L), mean session duration was 216 minutes for the intervention group and 207 minutes for the usual care group. We found no reduction in mortality or hospitalization rate for the intervention versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Although a highly pragmatic design allowed efficient enrollment, data acquisition, and monitoring, intervention uptake was insufficient to determine whether longer hemodialysis sessions improve outcomes. More effective strategies for engaging clinical personnel and patients are likely required to evaluate clinical trial interventions that are fully embedded in care delivery.