Patient perceived quality of cirrhosis care- adjunctive nurse-based care versus standard medical care: a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis treatment implies prevention and alleviation of serious disease events. Healthcare providers may, however, fail to meet patients' expectations of collaboration and specific needs of information and support. Individualised nursing care could meet patients' needs. The aim was thus to measure patient-perceived quality of care after adjunctive registered nurse-based intervention Quality Liver Nursing Care Model (QLiNCaM) compared with standard medical care. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre study consecutively randomised patients to either adjunctive registered nurse-based care, or standard medical care for 24 months (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02957253). Patients were allocated to either group at an equal ratio, at six Swedish outpatient clinics during 2016-2022. Using the questionnaire 'Quality of care from the patient's perspective', patients rated their perceived lack of quality for the adjunctive registered nurse-based intervention compared with the control group at 12 and 24 months, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 167 patients were recruited. Seven out of 22 items in the questionnaire supported the finding that 'lacking quality' decreased with adjunctive registered nurse-based care (p < 0.05) at 12 months follow-up; however, these differences could not be established at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Additional structured registered nurse-based visits in the cirrhosis outpatient team provided support for improved patient-perceived quality of care during the first 12 months. Registered nurses increase patient involvement and present easy access to cirrhosis outpatient care. Patients express appreciation for personalised information. This study reinforces registered nurses' role in the outpatient cirrhosis team, optimising patient care in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinical Trials 18th of October 2016, [ https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ], registration number: NCT02957253.

Weight Gain Prevention Outcomes From a Pragmatic Digital Health Intervention With Community Health Center Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity and its associated comorbidities continue to rise in the United States. Populations who are uninsured and from racial and ethnic minority groups continue to be disproportionately affected. These populations also experience fewer clinically meaningful outcomes in most weight loss trials. Weight gain prevention presents a useful strategy for individuals who experience barriers to weight loss. Given the often-limited weight management resources available to patients in primary care settings serving vulnerable patients, evaluating interventions with pragmatic designs may help inform the design of comprehensive obesity care delivered in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Balance, a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention, delivered to patients receiving primary care within federally qualified community health centers. METHODS: Balance was a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention delivered to individuals who had a BMI of 25-40 kg/m2, spoke English or Spanish, and were receiving primary care within a network of federally qualified community health centers in North Carolina. The Balance intervention was designed to encourage behavioral changes that result in a slight energy deficit. Intervention participants received tailored goal setting and tracking, skills training, self-monitoring, and responsive health coaching from registered dietitians. Weight was measured at regular primary care visits and documented in the electronic health record. We compared the percentage of ≤3% weight gain in each arm at 24 months after randomization-our primary outcome-using individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from the linear mixed-effects model. We used individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from participants with at least 1 electronic health record weight documented within a 6-month window centered on the 24-month time point. RESULTS: We randomized 443 participants, of which 223 (50.3%) participants were allocated to the intervention arm. At baseline, participants had a mean BMI of 32.6 kg/m2. Most participants were Latino or Hispanic (n=200, 45.1%) or non-Latino or Hispanic White (n=115, 26%). In total, 53% (n=235) of participants had at least 1 visit with weight measured in the primary time window. The intervention group had a higher proportion with ≤3% weight gain at 6 months (risk ratio=1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.28; risk difference=9.5, 95% CI -4.5 to 16.4 percentage points). This difference attenuated to the null by 24 months (risk ratio=1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.20; risk difference=0.2, 95% CI -12.1 to 11.0 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight or obesity receiving primary care at a community health center, we did not find long-term evidence to support the dissemination of a digital health intervention for weight gain prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003403; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03003403. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-019-6926-7.

[Evidence-based interventions to treat chronic low back pain: treatment selection for a personalized medicine approach : German version]. / Evidenzbasierte Interventionen zur Behandlung von chronischem Schmerz im unteren Rücken ­ Therapieauswahl für einen personalisierten Behandlungsansatz : Deutsche Fassung.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is highly prevalent in the United States and globally, resulting in functional impairment and lowered quality of life. While many treatments are available for cLBP, clinicians have little information about which specific treatment(s) will work best for individual patients or subgroups of patients. The Back Pain Research Consortium, part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM (HEAL) Initiative, will conduct a collaborative clinical trial, which seeks to develop a personalized medicine algorithm to optimize patient and provider treatment selection for patients with cLBP. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this article is to provide an update on evidence-based cLBP interventions and describe the process of reviewing and selecting interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. METHODS: A working group of cLBP experts reviewed and selected interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. The primary evaluation measures were strength of evidence and magnitude of treatment effect. When available in the literature, duration of effect, onset time, carryover effect, multimodal efficacy, responder subgroups, and evidence for the mechanism of treatment effect or biomarkers were considered. CONCLUSION: The working group selected 4 leading, evidence-based treatments for cLBP to be tested in the clinical trial and for use in routine clinical treatment. These treatments include (1) duloxetine, (2) acceptance and commitment therapy, (3) a classification-based exercise and manual therapy intervention, and (4) a self-management approach. These interventions each had a moderate to high level of evidence to support a therapeutic effect and were from different therapeutic classes.

Preventing cognitive decline by reducing BP target (PCOT): A randomized, pragmatic, multi-health systems clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (BP) may prevent mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. However, current guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding optimal BP targets, citing safety concerns of excessive BP lowering in the diverse population of older adults. We are conducting a pragmatic trial to determine if an implementation strategy to reduce systolic BP to <130 and diastolic BP to <80 mmHg will safely slow cognitive decline in older adults with hypertension when compared to patients receiving usual care. METHODS: The Preventing Cognitive Decline by Reducing BP Target Trial (PCOT) is an embedded randomized pragmatic clinical trial in 4000 patients from two diverse health-systems who are age ≥ 70 years with BP >130/80 mmHg. Participants are randomized to the intervention arm or usual care using a permuted block randomization within each health system. The intervention is a combination of team-based care with clinical decision support to lower home BP to <130/80 mmHg. The primary outcome is cognitive decline as determined by the change in the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m) scores from baseline. As a secondary outcome, patients who decline ≥3 points on the TICS-m will complete additional cognitive assessments and this information will be reviewed by an expert panel to determine if they meet criteria for MCI or dementia. CONCLUSION: The PCOT trial will address the effectiveness and safety of hypertension treatment in two large health systems to lower BP targets to reduce risk of cognitive decline in real-world settings.

Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are gaining popularity as a cost-effective way to examine treatment effectiveness and generate timely comparative evidence. Incorporating supplementary real-world data is recommended for robust outcome monitoring. However, detailed operational guidelines are needed to inform effective use and integration of heterogeneous databases. OBJECTIVE: Lessons learned from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) are reviewed, providing adaptable recommendations to capture clinical outcomes from real-world data. METHODS: Non-cancer deaths and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were determined using VA, Medicare, and National Death Index (NDI) data. Multiple ascertainment strategies were applied, including claims-based algorithms, natural language processing, and systematic chart review. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 2.4 (SD = 1.4) years, 907 CV events were identified within the VA healthcare system. Slight delays (∼1 year) were expected in obtaining Medicare data. An additional 298 patients were found having a CV event outside of the VA in 2016 - 2021, increasing the CV event rate from 3.5 % to 5.7 % (770 of 13,523 randomized). NDI data required âˆ¼2 years waiting period. Such inclusion did not increase the number of deaths identified (all 894 deaths were captured by VA data) but enhanced the accuracy in determining cause of death. CONCLUSION: Our experience supports the recommendation of integrating multiple data sources to improve clinical outcome ascertainment. While this approach is promising, hierarchical data aggregation is required when facing different acquisition timelines, information availability/completeness, coding practice, and system configurations. It may not be feasible to implement comparable applications and solutions to studies conducted under different constraints and practice. The recommendations provide guidance and possible action plans for researchers who are interested in applying cross-source data to ascertain all study outcomes.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial).

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance. METHODS: The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward. RESULTS: We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions. CONCLUSION: Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).

Use of pragmatic randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: A systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized for providing real-world evidence on treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the use and characteristics of pragmatic trials in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Systematic literature search and analysis of pragmatic trials on any intervention published up to 2022. The assessment of pragmatism with PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is performed. RESULTS: We identified 48 pragmatic trials published 1967-2022 that included a median of 82 participants (interquartile range (IQR) = 42-160) to assess typically supportive care interventions (n = 41; 85%). Only seven trials assessed drugs (15%). Only three trials (6%) included >500 participants. Trials were mostly from the United Kingdom (n = 18; 38%), Italy (n = 6; 13%), the United States and Denmark (each n = 5; 10%). Primary outcomes were diverse, for example, quality-of-life, physical functioning, or disease activity. Only 1 trial (2%) used routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment. No trial was very pragmatic in all design aspects, but 14 trials (29%) were widely pragmatic (i.e. PRECIS-2 score ⩾ 4/5 in all domains). CONCLUSION: Only few and mostly small pragmatic trials exist in MS which rarely assess drugs. Despite the widely available routine data infrastructures, very few trials utilize them. There is an urgent need to leverage the potential of this pioneering study design to provide useful randomized real-world evidence.

A patient activation intervention in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long term opioid therapy: results from a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Given significant risks associated with long-term prescription opioid use, there is a need for non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic pain. Activating patients to manage chronic pain has the potential to improve health outcomes. The ACTIVATE study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-session patient activation intervention in primary care for patients on long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: The two-arm, pragmatic, randomized trial was conducted in two primary care clinics in an integrated health system from June 2015-August 2018. Consenting participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 189) or usual care (n = 187). Participants completed online and interviewer-administered surveys at baseline, 6- and 12- months follow-up. Prescription opioid use was extracted from the EHR. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes included mood, function, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management strategies, and patient portal use. We conducted a repeated measure analysis and reported between-group differences at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the intervention and usual care arms had similar PAM scores. However, compared to usual care at 12 months, the intervention arm demonstrated: less moderate/severe depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.18-0.87); higher overall health (OR = 3.14, 95%CI 1.64-6.01); greater use of the patient portal's health/wellness resources (OR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.42-4.40) and lab/immunization history (OR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.29-5.65); and greater use of meditation (OR = 2.72; 95%CI 1.61-4.58) and exercise/physical therapy (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.29-3.88). At 12 months, the intervention arm had a higher physical health measure (mean difference 1.63; 95%CI: 0.27-2.98). CONCLUSION: This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a primary care intervention in improving patient activation and patient-reported outcomes among adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. Despite a lack of improvement in patient activation, a brief intervention in primary care can improve outcomes such as depression, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management, and engagement with the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on 10/27/14 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02290223).

A Pragmatic Randomized clinical trial: twice-weekly vs. thrice-weekly Incident hemoDialysis in Elderly patients (PRIDE): study protocol.

Background: The optimal frequency for hemodialysis in older adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) has not been established. This study aims to investigate whether a twice-weekly dialysis schedule using an incremental approach can reduce hospitalization rates in the elderly with incident dialysis, compared with conventional thrice-weekly dialysis. Methods: We have designed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly hemodialysis in 428 ESKD individuals (dropout rate 20%) aged 60 years or older with residual kidney function (urine output, >500 mL/ day). The trial will be conducted across 18 referral hospital-based dialysis centers in Korea. Individual participants will be randomized to either a twice-weekly (with incremental approach) or thrice-weekly dialysis group and will be followed up for 24 months. The primary outcome of the study is all-cause hospitalization rate, while secondary outcomes include dialysis-specific hospitalization rates, mortality, quality of life, frailty, and cost-effectiveness. Participants have the flexibility to transfer to other dialysis centers as needed. The decision to increase dialysis frequency will be made by the treating physicians. The study is ongoing and will be completed in May 2026. Conclusion: This study will provide valuable insights into the benefits and risks of twice-weekly dialysis with an incremental approach in elderly with residual kidney function compared to thrice-weekly dialysis.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Opportunistic treatment of hepatitis C infection among hospitalized people who inject drugs (OPPORTUNI-C): A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of opportunistic treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among hospitalized people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting HCV RNA positive individuals admitted for inpatient care in departments of internal medicine, addiction medicine, and psychiatry at three hospitals in Oslo, Norway. Seven departments were sequentially randomized to change from control conditions (standard of care referral to outpatient care) to intervention conditions (immediate treatment initiation). The primary outcome was treatment completion, defined as dispensing the final package of the prescribed treatment within six months after enrolment. RESULTS: A total of 200 HCV RNA positive individuals were enrolled between 1 October 2019 and 31 December 2021 (mean age 47.4 years, 72.5% male, 60.5% injected past 3 months, 20.4% cirrhosis). Treatment completion was accomplished by 67 of 98 (68.4% [95% CI 58.2-77.4]) during intervention conditions and by 36 of 102 (35.3% [95% CI 26.1-45.4]) during control conditions (risk difference 33.1% [95% CI 20.0-46.2]; risk ratio 1.9 [95% CI 1.4-2.6]). The intervention was superior in terms of treatment completion (aOR 4.8 [95% CI 1.8-12.8]; p = 0.002) and time to treatment initiation (aHR 4.0 [95% CI 2.5-6.3]; p < 0.001). Sustained virologic response was documented in 60 of 98 (61.2% [95% CI 50.8-70.9]) during intervention and in 66 of 102 (64.7% [95% CI 54.6-73.9]) during control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunistic test-and-treat approach to HCV infection was superior to standard of care among hospitalized PWID. The model of care should be considered for broader implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04220645.

Unresolved issues with noninferiority pragmatic trials: Results of a literature survey.

BACKGROUND: Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, or British Medical Journal published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words "pragmatic" or "comparative effectiveness" and "noninferiority" or "non-inferiority." Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized). RESULTS: Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data. CONCLUSION: Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.

Comparative Effectiveness of Transcutaneous Afferent Patterned Stimulation Therapy for Essential Tremor: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Background: Transcutaneous afferent patterned stimulation (TAPS) is a wrist-worn, non-invasive therapy delivering calibrated stimulation to the median and radial nerves. Previous randomized controlled studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of TAPS therapy in some patients with essential tremor (ET), but evidence supporting therapeutic benefits of TAPS versus standard of care (SOC) is lacking. This randomized prospective study evaluated the clinical benefit of adding TAPS treatment to SOC versus SOC alone. Methods: This randomized pragmatic trial recruited patients from a large health plan's Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage population. All 310 patients received a TAPS device and were randomized 1:1 to either one month adding TAPS therapy to usual care (TX arm) or usual care with tremor assessment only (SOC arm). The pre-specified endpoints were changes in tremor power measured by motion sensors on the device (primary) and improvement in Bain & Findley Activities of Daily Living (BF-ADL) upper limb scores (secondary) between TX and SOC in all patients who completed the one-month study. Results: 276 patients completed the one-month study (N = 133 TX, N = 143 SOC). The study met the primary and secondary endpoints, with significantly reduced tremor power in TX compared with SOC (0.017 (0.003) versus 0.08 (0.014) (m/s2)2; geometric mean (SE); p < 0.0001) and greater improvement in the BF-ADL score in TX than SOC (1.6 (0.43) vs 0.2 (0.37) points; mean (SE); p < 0.05). No serious device-related adverse events were reported. Discussion: This trial demonstrates that adding TAPS treatment to SOC significantly improves tremor power and BF-ADLs in patients with ET compared to SOC alone over one month of home use. Highlights: This study found that adding TAPS treatment to SOC significantly improves tremor power and BF-ADL scores in patients with ET compared to SOC alone over one month of home use. This real-world evidence study suggests that non-invasive TAPS therapy is a safe and valuable treatment option for patients with ET.

A Hybrid Effectiveness/Implementation Clinical Trial of Adherence to Long-Term Oxygen Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Interventions to promote adherence to long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are needed. Objectives: To examine the real-world effectiveness of phone-based peer coaching on LTOT adherence and other outcomes in a pragmatic trial of patients with COPD. Methods: In a hybrid effectiveness/implementation pragmatic trial, patients were randomized to receive phone-based proactive coaching (educational materials, five phone-based peer coaching sessions over 60 d), reactive coaching (educational materials, peer coaching when requested), or usual care. Study staff members collected baseline and outcome data via phone at 30, 60, and 90 days after randomization. Adherence to LTOT over 60 days, the primary effectiveness outcome, was defined as mean LTOT use ⩾17.7 h/d. LTOT use was calculated using information about home oxygen equipment use in worksheets completed by study participants. Comparisons of adherence to LTOT between each coaching group and the usual care group using multivariable logistic regression models were prespecified as the primary analyses. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System measures for physical, emotional, and social health. We assessed early implementation domains in the reach, adoption, and implementation framework. Results: In 444 participants, the proportions who were adherent to LTOT at 60 days were 74% in usual care, 84% in reactive coaching, and 70% in proactive coaching groups. Although reach, adoption by stakeholder partners, and intervention fidelity were acceptable, complete LTOT adherence data were available in only 73% of participants. Reactive coaching (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.80-3.90) and proactive coaching (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.34-1.46) did not improve adherence to LTOT compared with usual care. However, proactive coaching significantly reduced depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance compared with usual care and reduced depressive symptoms compared with reactive coaching. Unexpectedly, LTOT adherence was significantly lower in the proactive compared with the reactive coaching group. Conclusions: The results were inconclusive about whether a phone-based peer coaching strategy changed LTOT adherence compared with usual care. Further studies are needed to confirm the potential benefits of proactive peer coaching on secondary effectiveness outcomes and differences in LTOT adherence between proactive and reactive peer coaching. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02098369).

Optimizing remote access to urinary incontinence treatments for women veterans (PRACTICAL): Study protocol for a pragmatic clinical trial comparing two virtual care options.

OBJECTIVES: In this pragmatic clinical trial, the primary objective is to increase access to behavioral treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) for women Veterans by comparing the effectiveness of two virtual care delivery modalities. METHODS: Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical sites in AL, GA, NC will virtually randomize 286 women Veterans with UI (ie, stress, urge, or mixed). We will compare the effectiveness of our mHealth UI application (MyHealtheBladder) to a single VA Video Connect (VVC) session delivered by trained UI providers. Women without improvement after 8 weeks will receive an optimization VVC visit using a sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design. The primary outcome is UI symptom improvement at 12-weeks with or without optimization; secondary outcomes include improvements in lower urinary tract symptoms, adherence, retention rates, perceptions of improvement, and visit-related miles saved. Sample size needed to identify a 2.5-point change (range 0-21) in the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) from baseline to 12-weeks post-randomization is 200 participants. Allowing for an attrition rate of 25%, 286 participants are required. KEY RESULTS: Study team initiated remote recruitment on April 2020. Recruitment is on target with a 75% retention rate. We expect completion in fall of 2023 (clinicaltrials.govNCT04237753). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Engaging women Veterans with virtual modalities for initial UI treatment may increase access to UI care while also improving symptoms. After assessing efficacy, adherence, and retention, the next step is to implement the most effective option for remote delivery of evidence-based behavioral UI treatment for women Veterans. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04237753.

Effects of a patient-centered digital health intervention in patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation: the Smart HEART clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves outcomes in heart disease yet remains vastly underutilized. Remote CR enhanced with a digital health intervention (DHI) may offer higher access and improved patient-centered outcomes over non-technology approaches. We sought to pragmatically determine whether offering a DHI improves CR access, cardiac risk profile, and patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: Adults referred to CR at a tertiary VA medical center between October 2017 and December 2021 were offered enrollment into a DHI alongside other CR modalities using shared decision-making. The DHI consisted of remote CR with a structured, 3-month home exercise program enhanced with multi-component coaching, a commercial smartphone app, and wearable activity tracker. We measured completion rates among DHI participants and evaluated changes in 6-min walk distance, cardiovascular risk factors, and patient-reported outcomes from pre- to post-intervention. RESULTS: Among 1,643 patients referred to CR, 258 (16%) consented to the DHI where the mean age was 60 ± 9 years, 93% were male, and 48% were black. A majority (90%) of the DHI group completed the program. Over 3-months, significant improvements were seen in 6MWT (mean difference [MD] -29 m; 95% CI, 10 to 49; P < 0.01) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -11 mg/dL; 95% CI, -17 to -5; P < 0.01), and the absolute proportion of patients who reported smoking decreased (10% vs 15%; MD, -5%; 95% CI, -8% to -2%; P < 0.01) among DHI participants with available data. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a DHI-enhanced remote CR program was delivered in 16% of referred veterans and associated with improved CR access, markers of cardiovascular risk, and healthy behaviors in this real-world study. These findings support the continued implementation of DHIs for remote CR in real-world clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02791685 (07/06/2016).

Optimizing data integration in trials that use EHR data: lessons learned from a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite great promise, trials that ascertain patient clinical data from electronic health records (EHR), referred to here as "EHR-sourced" trials, are limited by uncertainty about how existing trial sites and infrastructure can be best used to operationalize study goals. Evidence is needed to support the practical use of EHRs in contemporary clinical trial settings. MAIN TEXT: We describe a demonstration project that used EHR data to complement data collected for a contemporary multi-center pharmaceutical industry outcomes trial, and how a central coordinating center supported participating sites through the technical, governance, and operational aspects of this type of activity. We discuss operational considerations related to site selection, data extraction, site performance, and data transfer and quality review, and we outline challenges and lessons learned. We surveyed potential sites and used their responses to assess feasibility, determine the potential capabilities of sites and choose an appropriate data extraction strategy. We designed a flexible, multimodal approach for data extraction, enabling each site to either leverage an existing data source, create a new research datamart, or send all data to the central coordinating center to produce the requisite data elements. We evaluated site performance, as reflected by the speed of contracting and IRB approval, total patients enrolled, enrollment yield, data quality, and compared performance by data collection strategy. CONCLUSION: While broadening the type of sites able to participate in EHR-sourced trials may lead to greater generalizability and improved enrollment, sites with fewer technical resources may require additional support to participate. Central coordinating center support is essential to facilitate the execution of operational processes. Future work should focus on sharing lessons learned and creating reusable tools to facilitate participation of heterogeneous trial sites.

Coordinated Health Care Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) plan.

Background: Evidence-based strategies to improve outcomes in minority children with uncontrolled asthma discharged from the emergency department (ED) are needed. Objectives: This multicenter pragmatic clinical trial was designed to compare an ED-only intervention (decision support tool), an ED-only intervention and home visits by community health workers for 6 months (ED-plus-home), and enhanced usual care (UC). Methods: Children aged 5 to 11 years with uncontrolled asthma were enrolled. The change over 6 months in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Asthma Impact Scale score in children and Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles score in caregivers were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management. Results: Recruitment was significantly lower than expected (373 vs 640 expected). Of the 373 children (64% Black and 31% Latino children), only 63% completed the 6-month follow-up visit. In multivariable analyses that accounted for missing data, the adjusted odds ratios and 98% CIs for differences in Asthma Impact Scores or caregivers' Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles scores were not significant. However, guideline-recommended ED discharge care was significantly improved in the intervention groups versus in the UC group, and self-management behaviors were significantly improved in the ED-plus-home group versus in the ED-only and UC groups. Conclusions: The ED-based interventions did not significantly improve the primary clinical outcomes, although the study was likely underpowered. Although guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management did improve, their effect on clinical outcomes needs further study.

A pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effect of a targeted notification and clinical support pathway on the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of individuals with left ventricular hypertrophy (NOTIFY-LVH).

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records contain vast amounts of cardiovascular data, including potential clues suggesting unrecognized conditions. One important example is the identification of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) on echocardiography. If the underlying causes are untreated, individuals are at increased risk of developing clinically significant pathology. As the most common cause of LVH, hypertension accounts for more cardiovascular deaths than any other modifiable risk factor. Contemporary healthcare systems have suboptimal mechanisms for detecting and effectively implementing hypertension treatment before downstream consequences develop. Thus, there is an urgent need to validate alternative intervention strategies for individuals with preexisting-but potentially unrecognized-LVH. METHODS: Through a randomized pragmatic trial within a large integrated healthcare system, we will study the impact of a centralized clinical support pathway on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and other LVH-associated diseases in individuals with echocardiographic evidence of concentric LVH. Approximately 600 individuals who are not treated for hypertension and who do not have a known cardiomyopathy will be randomized. The intervention will be directed by population health coordinators who will notify longitudinal clinicians and offer to assist with the diagnostic evaluation of LVH. Our hypothesis is that an intervention that alerts clinicians to the presence of LVH will increase the detection and treatment of hypertension and the diagnosis of alternative causes of thickened myocardium. The primary outcome is the initiation of an antihypertensive medication. Secondary outcomes include new hypertension diagnoses and new cardiomyopathy diagnoses. The trial began in March 2023 and outcomes will be assessed 12 months from the start of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The NOTIFY-LVH trial will assess the efficacy of a centralized intervention to improve the detection and treatment of hypertension and LVH-associated diseases. Additionally, it will serve as a proof-of-concept for how to effectively utilize previously collected electronic health data to improve the recognition and management of a broad range of chronic cardiovascular conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05713916.

Partner engagement for planning and development of non-pharmacological care pathways in the AIM-Back trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly recommended for non-pharmacological pain care research due to their focus on examining intervention effectiveness within real-world settings. Engagement with patients, health care providers, and other partners is essential, yet there is limited guidance for how to use engagement to meaningfully inform the design of interventions to be tested in pain-related pragmatic clinical trials. This manuscript aims to describe the process and impacts of partner input on the design of two interventions (care pathways) for low back pain currently being tested in an embedded pragmatic trial in the Veterans Affairs health care system. METHODS: Sequential cohort design for intervention development was followed. Engagement activities were conducted with 25 participants between November 2017 and June 2018. Participants included representatives from multiple groups: clinicians, administrative leadership, patients, and caregivers. RESULTS: Partner feedback led to several changes in each of the care pathways to improve patient experience and usability. Major changes to the sequenced care pathway included transitioning from telephone-based delivery to a flexible telehealth model, increased specificity about pain modulation activities, and reduction of physical therapy visits. Major changes to the pain navigator pathway included transitioning from a traditional stepped care model to one that offers care in a feedback loop, increased flexibility regarding pain navigator provider type, and increased specificity for patient discharge criteria. Centering patient experience emerged as a key consideration from all partner groups. CONCLUSION: Diverse input is important to consider before implementing new interventions in embedded pragmatic trials. Partner engagement can increase acceptability of new care pathways to patients and providers and enhance uptake of effective interventions by health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT#04411420. Registered on 2 June 2020.