From a decentralized clinical trial to a decentralized and clinical-trial-in-a-box platform: Towards patient-centric and equitable trials.

Background/Objective: Despite the intuitive attractiveness of bringing research to participants rather than making them come to central study sites, widespread decentralized enrollment has not been common in clinical trials. Methods: The need for clinical research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with innovations in technology, led us to use a decentralized trial approach in our Phase 2 COVID-19 trial. We used real-time acquisition and transmission of health-related data using home-based monitoring devices and mobile applications to assess outcomes. This approach not only avoids spreading COVID-19 but it also can support inclusion of participants in more diverse socioeconomic circumstances and in rural settings. Results: Our team developed and deployed a decentralized trial platform to support patient engagement and adverse event reporting. Clinicians, engineers, and informaticians on our research team developed a Clinical-Trial-in-a-Box tool to optimally collect and analyze data from multiple decentralized platforms. Conclusion: Applying the decentralized model in Long COVID, using digital health technology and personal devices integrated with our telehealth platform, we share the lessons learned from our work, along with challenges and future possibilities.

The use of N-of-1 trials to generate real-world evidence for optimal treatment of individuals and populations.

Introduction: Ideally, real-world data (RWD) collected to generate real-world evidence (RWE) should lead to impact on the care and health of real-world patients. Deriving from care in which clinicians and patients try various treatments to inform therapeutic decisions, N-of-1 trials bring scientific methods to real-world practice. Methods: These single-patient crossover trials generate RWD and RWE by giving individual patients various treatments in a double-blinded way in sequential periods to determine the most effective treatment for a given patient. Results: This approach is most often used for patients with chronic, relatively stable conditions that provide the opportunity to make comparisons over multiple treatment periods, termed Type 1 N-of-1 trials. These are most helpful when there is heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients and no a priori best option. N-of-1 trials also can be done for patients with rare diseases, potentially testing only one treatment, to generate evidence for personalized treatment decisions, designated as Type 2 N-of-1 trials. With both types, in addition to informing individual's treatments, when uniform protocols are used for multiple patients with the same condition, the data collected in the individual N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to provide RWD/RWE to inform more general use of the treatments. Thereby, N-of-1 trials can provide RWE for the care of individuals and for populations. Conclusions: To fulfill this potential, we believe N-of-1 trials should be built into our current healthcare ecosystem. To this end, we are building the needed infrastructure and engaging the stakeholders who should receive value from this approach.

Leveraging the Expertise of the CTSA Program to Increase the Impact and Efficiency of Clinical Trials.

Importance: Multicenter clinical trials play a critical role in the translational processes that enable new treatments to reach all people and improve public health. However, conducting multicenter randomized clinical trials (mRCT) presents challenges. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN), established in 2016 to partner with the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium of academic medical institutions in the implementation of mRCTs, consists of 3 Trial Innovation Centers (TICs) and 1 Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC). This unique partnership has aimed to address critical roadblocks that impede the design and conduct of mRCTs, in expectation of accelerating the translation of novel interventions to clinical practice. The TIN's challenges and achievements are described in this article, along with examples of innovative resources and processes that may serve as useful models for other clinical trial networks providing operational and recruitment support. Observations: The TIN has successfully integrated more than 60 CTSA institution program hubs into a functional network for mRCT implementation and optimization. A unique support system for investigators has been created that includes the development and deployment of novel tools, operational and recruitment services, consultation models, and rapid communication pathways designed to reduce delays in trial start-up, enhance recruitment, improve engagement of diverse research participants and communities, and streamline processes that improve the quality, efficiency, and conduct of mRCTs. These resources and processes span the clinical trial spectrum and enable the TICs and RIC to serve as coordinating centers, data centers, and recruitment specialists to assist trials across the National Institutes of Health and other agencies. The TIN's impact has been demonstrated through its response to both historical operational challenges and emerging public health emergencies, including the national opioid public health crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: The TIN has worked to reduce barriers to implementing mRCTs and to improve mRCT processes and operations by providing needed clinical trial infrastructure and resources to CTSA investigators. These resources have been instrumental in more quickly and efficiently translating research discoveries into beneficial patient treatments.

Decentralized clinical trials in the trial innovation network: Value, strategies, and lessons learned.

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or "hybrid" trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.

Approaches for enhancing the informativeness and quality of clinical trials: Innovations and principles for implementing multicenter trials from the Trial Innovation Network.

One challenge for multisite clinical trials is ensuring that the conditions of an informative trial are incorporated into all aspects of trial planning and execution. The multicenter model can provide the potential for a more informative environment, but it can also place a trial at risk of becoming uninformative due to lack of rigor, quality control, or effective recruitment, resulting in premature discontinuation and/or non-publication. Key factors that support informativeness are having the right team and resources during study planning and implementation and adequate funding to support performance activities. This communication draws on the experience of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to develop approaches for enhancing the informativeness of clinical trials. We distilled this information into three principles: (1) assemble a diverse team, (2) leverage existing processes and systems, and (3) carefully consider budgets and contracts. The TIN, comprised of NCATS, three Trial Innovation Centers, a Recruitment Innovation Center, and 60+ CTSA Program hubs, provides resources to investigators who are proposing multicenter collaborations. In addition to sharing principles that support the informativeness of clinical trials, we highlight TIN-developed resources relevant for multicenter trial initiation and conduct.

Development and validation of a predictive model for the diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease in low-income countries based on two cross-sectional studies.

Objectives: We developed a questionnaire-based risk-scoring system to identify children at risk for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in rural India. The resulting predictive model was validated in Nepal, in a population with a similar demographic profile to rural India. Methods: The study involved 8646 students (mean age 13.0 years, 46% boys) from 20 middle and high schools in the West Midnapore district of India. The survey asked questions about the presence of different signs and symptoms of RHD. Students with possible RHD who experienced sore throat and joint pain were offered an echocardiogram to screen for RHD. Their findings were compared with randomly selected students without these symptoms. The data were analyzed to develop a predictive model for identifying RHD. Results: Based on our univariate analyses, seven variables were used for building a predictive model. A four-variable model (joint pain plus sore throat, female sex, shortness of breath, and palpitations) best predicted the risk of RHD with a C-statistic of 0.854. A six-point scoring system developed from the model was validated among similarly aged children in Nepal. Conclusions: A simple questionnaire-based predictive instrument could identify children at higher risk for this disease in low-income countries where RHD remains prevalent. Echocardiography could then be used in these high-risk children to detect RHD in its early stages. This may support a strategy for more effective secondary prophylaxis of RHD.

Development, implementation, and dissemination of operational innovations across the trial innovation network.

Improving the quality and conduct of multi-center clinical trials is essential to the generation of generalizable knowledge about the safety and efficacy of healthcare treatments. Despite significant effort and expense, many clinical trials are unsuccessful. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network to address critical roadblocks in multi-center trials by leveraging existing infrastructure and developing operational innovations. We provide an overview of the roadblocks that led to opportunities for operational innovation, our work to develop, define, and map innovations across the network, and how we implemented and disseminated mature innovations.

Participant and research team perspectives on the conduct of a remote therapeutic COVID-19 clinical trial: A mixed methods approach.

Background: Responding to the need to investigate potential treatments of COVID-19, a research team employed a telehealth platform to determine whether niclosamide, an oral anthelmintic drug that had shown antiviral activity, reduced SARS-CoV-2 shedding and duration of symptoms in patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms of COVID-19. To encourage compliance with patient self-quarantine, this randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted utilizing a remote telehealth design to complete all study visits, monitor symptoms, and coordinate participant self-collected specimens. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing surveys and interviews of trial participants and interviews of research team members was used to collect their experiences with and perspectives on the acceptability of the remote clinical trial design and delivery. Results: Of the 67 eligible trial participants invited to take part in a study to evaluate the telehealth platform, 46% (n = 31) completed a post-participation survey. While 97% (n = 30) of respondents had not previously participated in a clinical trial, 77% (n = 24) reported they would consider taking part in a future remote research study. The majority of respondents were moderately or very comfortable (93%) with using the technology. Conclusions: The COVID-19 crisis was a call to action to expand understanding of the conduct of remote clinical trials, including the experiences of research participants. Our findings showed that this approach can be both effective for the conduct of research and positive for participants. Further research on the use of telehealth research platforms seems warranted in rural, underserved populations, and remote trials of prevention, screening, and treatment.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation MI and No Standard Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The author recently reported ∼50% excess early mortality in patients with first-presentation ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs); the cause of this is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine differences in infarct characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with versus without SMuRFs (dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking). METHODS: Individual-level data were pooled from 10 randomized percutaneous intervention (PCI) trials in which infarct size was measured within 1 month by either cardiac magnetic resonance or technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. First-presentation STEMI was classified into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of at least 1 SMuRF. RESULTS: Among 2,862 patients, 524 (18.3%) were SMuRF-less. After adjusting for study effect, SMuRF-less patients had more frequent poor pre-PCI flow Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 0/1 compared with patients with at least 1 SMuRF (72.0% vs 64.1%; OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.08-1.70). There were no independent associations between the presence or absence of SMuRFs at baseline and infarct size (estimate = -0.35; 95% CI: -1.93 to 1.23), left ventricular ejection fraction (estimate = -0.06; 95% CI: -1.33 to 1.20), or mortality at 30 days (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.19-1.07) and 1 year (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.43-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: First-presentation STEMI patients with no identifiable baseline SMuRFs had a higher risk of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 0/1 pre-PCI. However, after adjustment, there were no significant associations between SMuRF-less status and infarct size, left ventricle ejection fraction, or mortality.

Sharing data among clinical trials of therapeutics in COVID-19: Barriers and facilitators to collaborating in a crisis.

Background: The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) was launched in 2016 to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of multisite trials by supporting the development of national infrastructure. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was therefore well-positioned to support clinical trial collaboration. The TIN was leveraged to support two initiatives: (1) to create and evaluate a mechanism for coordinating Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) activities among multiple ongoing trials of the same therapeutic agents, and (2) to share data across clinical trials so that smaller, likely underpowered studies, could be combined to produce meaningful and actionable data through pooled analyses. The success of these initiatives was understood to be dependent upon the willingness of investigators, study teams, and US National Institutes of Health research networks to collaborate and share information. Methods: To inform these two initiatives, we conducted semistructured interviews with members of CTSA hubs and clinical research stakeholders that probed barriers and facilitators to collaboration. Thematic analysis identified topics relevant across institutions, individuals, and DSMBs. Results: The DSMB coordination initiative was viewed as less controversial, while the data pooling initiative was seen as complex because of its potential impact on publication, authorship, and the rewards of discovery. Barriers related to resources, centralization, and technical work were significant, but interviewees suggested these could be handled by the provision of central funding and supportive frameworks. The more intractable findings were related to issues around credit and ownership of data. Conclusion: Based on our interviews, we conclude with nine recommended actions that can be implemented to support collaboration.

Efficacy of Niclosamide vs Placebo in SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Viral Clearance, Viral Shedding, and Duration of Symptoms Among Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Oral anthelmintic niclosamide has potent in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Repurposed niclosamide could be a safe and efficacious COVID-19 therapy. Objective: To investigate whether niclosamide decreased SARS-CoV-2 shedding and duration of symptoms among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial enrolled individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID. All trial participants, investigators, staff, and laboratory personnel were kept blind to participant assignments. Enrollment was among individuals reporting at Tufts Medical Center and Wellforce Network in Massachusetts for outpatient COVID-19 testing. The trial opened to accrual on October 1, 2020; the last participant enrolled on April 20, 2021. Trial exclusion criteria included hospitalization at time of enrollment or use of any experimental treatment for COVID-19, including vaccination. Enrollment was stopped before attaining the planned sample size when COVID-19 diagnoses decreased precipitously in Massachusetts. Data were analyzed from July through September 2021. Interventions: In addition to receiving current standard of care, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive niclosamide 2 g by mouth daily for 7 days or identically labeled placebo at the same dosing schedule. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oropharyngeal and fecal samples were self-collected for viral shedding measured by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction on days 3, 7, 10, and 14, and an additional fecal sample was collected on day 21. A telehealth platform was developed to conduct remote study visits, monitor symptoms, and coordinate sample collection via couriers. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with viral clearance in respiratory samples at day 3 based on the intention-to-treat sample. Mean times to viral clearance and symptom resolution were calculated as restricted mean survival times and accounted for censored observations. Results: Among 73 participants, 36 individuals were enrolled and randomized to niclosamide and 37 individuals to placebo. Participant characteristics were similar across treatment groups; among 34 patients receiving placebo and 33 patients receiving niclosamide in the intention-to-treat sample, mean (SD) age was 36.0 (13.3) years vs 36.8 (12.9) years and there were 21 (61.8%) men vs 20 (60.6%) men. The overall mean (SD) age was 36.4 (13.0) years. For the primary end point, 66.67% (95% CI, 50.74% to 81.81%) of participants receiving niclosamide and 55.88% (95% CI, 40.27% to 72.73%) of participants receiving placebo had oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 clearance at day 3 (P = .37). Among 63 participants with symptoms, niclosamide did not significantly shorten symptom duration, which was 12.01 (95% CI, 8.82 to 15.2) days in the niclosamide group vs 14.61 (95% CI, 11.25 to 17.96) days in the placebo group (mean difference, -2.6 [95% CI, -7.23 to 2.03] days). Niclosamide was well-tolerated; the most commonly reported adverse events in the placebo and niclosamide groups were headaches (11 patients [32.4%] vs 7 patients [21.2%]; P = .31) and cough (8 patients [23.5%] vs 7 patients [21.2%]; P = .82). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, there was no significant difference in oropharyngeal clearance of SARS-CoV-2 at day 3 between placebo and niclosamide groups. Confirmation in larger studies is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04399356.

A Useful and Sustainable Role for N-of-1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem.

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2 N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials.

Response of the trial innovation network to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the development and implementation of hundreds of clinical trials across the USA. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN), funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, was an established clinical research network that pivoted to respond to the pandemic. METHODS: The TIN's three Trial Innovation Centers, Recruitment Innovation Center, and 66 Clinical and Translational Science Award Hub institutions, collaborated to adapt to the pandemic's rapidly changing landscape, playing central roles in the planning and execution of pivotal studies addressing COVID-19. Our objective was to summarize the results of these collaborations and lessons learned. RESULTS: The TIN provided 29 COVID-related consults between March 2020 and December 2020, including 6 trial participation expressions of interest and 8 community engagement studios from the Recruitment Innovation Center. Key lessons learned from these experiences include the benefits of leveraging an established infrastructure, innovations surrounding remote research activities, data harmonization and central safety reviews, and early community engagement and involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlighted the benefits and challenges of a multi-institutional approach to clinical research during a pandemic.

Time Delay, Infarct Size, and Microvascular Obstruction After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Symptom-to-balloon time (SBT) and door-to-balloon time (DBT) are both considered important metrics in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to assess the relationship of SBT and DBT with infarct size and microvascular obstruction (MVO) after pPCI. METHODS: Individual patient data for 3115 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing pPCI in 10 randomized trials were pooled. Infarct size (% left ventricular mass) was assessed within 1 month after randomization by technetium-99 m sestamibi single-photon emission computerized tomography (3 studies) or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (7 studies). MVO was assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance. Patients were stratified by short (≤2 hours), intermediate (2-4 hours), or long (>4 hours) SBTs, and by short (≤45 minutes), intermediate (45-90 minutes), or long (>90 minutes) DBTs. RESULTS: Median [interquartile range] SBT and DBT were 185 [130-269] and 46 [28-83] minutes, respectively. Median [interquartile range] time to infarct size assessment after pPCI was 5 [3-12] days. There was a stepwise increase in infarct size according to SBT category (adjusted difference, 2.0% [95% CI, 0.4-3.5] for intermediate versus short SBT and 4.4% [95% CI, 2.7-6.1] for long versus short SBT) but not according to DBT category (adjusted difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -1.2 to 1.9] for intermediate versus short DBT and -0.1% [95% CI, -1.0 to 3.0] for long versus short SBT). MVO was greater in patients with long versus short SBT (adjusted difference, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.3-1.4]) but was not different between patients with intermediate versus short SBT (adjusted difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.6]). There was no difference in MVO according to DBT. Results were similar in multivariable analysis with SBT and DBT included as continuous variables. CONCLUSIONS: Among 3115 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing infarct size assessment after pPCI, SBT was more strongly correlated with infarct size and MVO than DBT.

A questionnaire survey for improving awareness of rheumatic heart disease among school-aged children in India.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the level of awareness about Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) among school-aged children in a rural district of India and evaluated the effects of a questionnaire-based survey in improving the level of awareness. METHODS: The study involved 8,646 students aged 10-16 years from 20 schools in West Midnapore, India which was conducted in August 2017. We examined changes in the level of awareness of RHD using a 29-point scoring system in seven domains. The baseline questionnaire survey assessed students' knowledge and was followed by a multimedia presentation about RHD and a post-intervention survey using the same questionnaire. The questionnaire included 9 questions on different aspects of RHD including prevalence, nature of disease, symptoms, determinants, treatment options, impact of the disease and diagnosis. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 13 years and 46% were boys. At baseline, the mean level of knowledge about RHD was 42% (12.2 out of 29 points). After the school-based presentation, the score improved to a mean of 55% (15.9 points on the 29-point scale), a 31% relative improvement. Improvement in students' knowledge was noted across all seven domains, individually and combined (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness among children in rural India about RHD is modest. A school-based intervention could help in improving awareness about this chronic condition and may promote secondary prophylaxis to reduce the morbidity and mortality from RHD.

Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.

Stakeholder engagement in methodological research: Development of a clinical decision support tool.

INTRODUCTION: Shared patient-clinician decision-making is central to choosing between medical treatments. Decision support tools can have an important role to play in these decisions. We developed a decision support tool for deciding between nonsurgical treatment and surgical total knee replacement for patients with severe knee osteoarthritis. The tool aims to provide likely outcomes of alternative treatments based on predictive models using patient-specific characteristics. To make those models relevant to patients with knee osteoarthritis and their clinicians, we involved patients, family members, patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers as stakeholders in creating the models. METHODS: Stakeholders were recruited through local arthritis research, advocacy, and clinical organizations. After being provided with brief methodological education sessions, stakeholder views were solicited through quarterly patient or clinician stakeholder panel meetings and incorporated into all aspects of the project. RESULTS: Participating in each aspect of the research from determining the outcomes of interest to providing input on the design of the user interface displaying outcome predications, 86% (12/14) of stakeholders remained engaged throughout the project. Stakeholder engagement ensured that the prediction models that form the basis of the Knee Osteoarthritis Mathematical Equipoise Tool and its user interface were relevant for patient-clinician shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological research has the opportunity to benefit from stakeholder engagement by ensuring that the perspectives of those most impacted by the results are involved in study design and conduct. While additional planning and investments in maintaining stakeholder knowledge and trust may be needed, they are offset by the valuable insights gained.

Effect of Smoking on Outcomes of Primary PCI in Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a well-established risk factor for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, once STEMI occurs, smoking has been associated with favorable short-term outcomes, an observation termed the "smoker's paradox." It has been postulated that smoking might exert protective effects that could reduce infarct size, a strong independent predictor of worse outcomes after STEMI. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship among smoking, infarct size, microvascular obstruction (MVO), and adverse outcomes after STEMI. METHODS: Individual patient-data were pooled from 10 randomized trials of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Infarct size was assessed at median 4 days by either cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the relationship between smoking, infarct size, and the 1-year rates of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and reinfarction. RESULTS: Among 2,564 patients with STEMI, 1,093 (42.6%) were recent smokers. Smokers were 10 years younger and had fewer comorbidities. Infarct size was similar in smokers and nonsmokers (adjusted difference: 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.99). Nor was the extent of MVO different between smokers and nonsmokers. Smokers had lower crude 1-year rates of all-cause death (1.0% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001) and death or HF hospitalization (3.3% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.009) with similar rates of reinfarction. After adjustment for age and other risk factors, smokers had a similar 1-year risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR]: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.84) and higher risks of death or HF hospitalization (adjHR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.02) as well as reinfarction (adjHR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.17 to 3.33). CONCLUSIONS: In the present large-scale individual patient-data pooled analysis, recent smoking was unrelated to infarct size or MVO, but was associated with a worse prognosis after primary PCI in STEMI. The smoker's paradox may be explained by the younger age and fewer cardiovascular risk factors in smokers compared with nonsmokers.