Recruitment experience for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial: Using EMR initiatives and minimizing research infrastructure.

CONTEXT: Modernized approaches to multisite randomized controlled trials (RCT) include the use of electronic medical records (EMR) for recruitment, remote data capture (RDC) for multisite data collection, and strategies to reduce the need for research infrastructure. These features facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials, or trials conducted in "real life" settings. OBJECTIVE: We describe the recruitment experience of an RCT to evaluate a clinic-based intervention targeting urban youth with asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using encounter and prescription databases, a list of potentially-eligible patients was linked to the Epic appointment scheduling system. Patients were enrolled during a scheduled visit and then electronically randomized to a tailored versus generic online intervention. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 1146 appointments for 580 eligible patients visiting 5 clinics were identified, of which 45.9% (266/580) were randomized to reach targeted enrollment (n=250). RDC facilitated multisite enrollment. Intervention content was further personalized through real- time entry of asthma medications prescribed at the clinic visit. EMR monitoring helped with recruitment trouble-shooting. Systemic challenges included a system-wide EMR transition and a system-wide reorganization of clinic staffing. CONCLUSIONS: Modernized RCTs can accelerate translation of research findings. Electronic initiatives facilitated implementation of this RCT; however, adaptations to recruitment strategies resulted in a more "explanatory" framework. .

Prospective randomized phase 2 trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy with or without oncolytic adenovirus-mediated cytotoxic gene therapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of combining oncolytic adenovirus-mediated cytotoxic gene therapy (OAMCGT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-four men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either OAMCGT plus IMRT (arm 1; n=21) or IMRT only (arm 2; n=23). The primary phase 2 endpoint was acute (≤90 days) toxicity. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QOL), prostate biopsy (12-core) positivity at 2 years, freedom from biochemical/clinical failure (FFF), freedom from metastases, and survival. RESULTS: Men in arm 1 exhibited a greater incidence of low-grade influenza-like symptoms, transaminitis, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia than men in arm 2. There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal or genitourinary events or QOL between the 2 arms. Two-year prostate biopsies were obtained from 37 men (84%). Thirty-three percent of men in arm 1 were biopsy-positive versus 58% in arm 2, representing a 42% relative reduction in biopsy positivity in the investigational arm (P=.13). There was a 60% relative reduction in biopsy positivity in the investigational arm in men with <50% positive biopsy cores at baseline (P=.07). To date, 1 patient in each arm exhibited biochemical failure (arm 1, 4.8%; arm 2, 4.3%). No patient developed hormone-refractory or metastatic disease, and none has died from prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Combining OAMCGT with IMRT does not exacerbate the most common side effects of prostate radiation therapy and suggests a clinically meaningful reduction in positive biopsy results at 2 years in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.