Prognostic factors in post-prostatectomy salvage radiotherapy setting with and without hormonotherapy: An individual patient data analysis of randomized trials from ICECaP database.

BACKGROUND: Early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is the standard of care for biochemical recurrence post-prostatectomy but outcomes are heterogeneous. OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk scoring system based on relevant standard-of-care clinico-pathological prognostic factors for patients treated with SRT with and without hormonal therapy (HT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) database included three randomized trials (Individual patients' data from 1647 subjects) assessing SRT (GETUG-AFU-16; NRG/RTOG-9601, and a subset of EORTC-22911). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were clinical progression (CP). metastasis free-survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Clinico-pathological factors, including pathological Gleason Score (GS), PSA at SRT start, margin status, persistent PSA post-RP and time from RP to SRT were evaluated by multivariable models stratified by type of treatment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: On multivariable analysis PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/mL at SRT start, GS ≥ 8 and negative margin status were the three strongest prognostic factors. Three prognostic groups defined by number of these risk features (high risk: 2 or 3; intermediate risk: 1 and low risk: 0) were strongly associated with OS, MFS and CP outcomes with SRT alone or with HT. This prognostic group definition was also relevant for patients with persistent PSA post RP and for patients treated < 1 year from RP to SRT and with and without HT. CONCLUSION: A risk score for patients receiving SRT with or without HT, using three standard-of-care clinico-pathological risk factors provides refined prognostic information for individual patient counselling. PATIENT SUMMARY: By using a composite score of pathology grading (Gleason Score), PSA at start of salvage radiation and margin status data, physicians can provide patients with more refined information on the risk of a second relapse after receiving radiation to the prostate bed after a prostatectomy for a rising or persistent PSA, both with and without hormonal therapy.

Trial selection criteria should not be used for clinical decisions and recommendations: the thrombectomy trials example.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple calls for more inclusive studies, most clinical trial eligibility criteria remain too restrictive. Thrombectomy trials have been no exception. METHODS: We review the landmark trials that have shown the benefits of thrombectomy, their eligibility criteria, and consequences on clinical practice. We discuss the rationale behind various reasons for exclusions. We also examine the logical problem involved in using eligibility criteria as indications for treatment. RESULTS: Most thrombectomy trials have been too restrictive. This has been shown by a plethora of follow-up studies that have refuted most of the previously recommended trial eligibility restrictions. Meanwhile, the effect of clinical recommendations based on restrictive eligibility criteria is that treatment has been denied to the majority of patients who could have benefitted. Trial eligibility criteria cannot be used to make clinical decisions or recommendations unless, like any other medical diagnosis, they have been shown capable of reliably differentiating patients into those that will, and those that will not benefit from treatment. This goal can only be achieved with all-inclusive pragmatic trials. CONCLUSION: Restrictive eligibility criteria render clinical trials incapable of guiding medical decisions or recommendations.

Efficacy of lifestyle weight loss interventions on regression to normoglycemia and progression to type 2 diabetes in individuals with prediabetes: a systematic review and pairwise and dose-response meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for weight loss in individuals with prediabetes come from individual trials and are derived from older data. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the dose-dependent impacts of weight loss on participants with prediabetes to determine the optimal magnitude of weight loss required for the implementation of the most effective diabetes prevention program. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and gray literature sources to September 2023 for randomized trials ≥6 mo that evaluated the efficacy of a lifestyle weight loss intervention on participants with prediabetes. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses to calculate relative and absolute effects. We performed a 1-stage weighted mixed-effects meta-analysis to elucidate the dose-response curves. RESULTS: Forty-four randomized trials with 14,742 participants with prediabetes [intervention duration range: 6-72 mo (median: 24 mo), mean weight loss range: 1%-9%] were included. Lifestyle weight loss interventions increased regression to normoglycemia by 11/100 participants (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8 more, 17 more; risk ratio: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.27, 1.80; n = 20 trials, grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation = moderate], and reduced progression to type 2 diabetes by 8/100 participants (95% CI: 11 fewer, 6 fewer; risk ratio: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.67; n = 37, grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation = moderate). There were no significant or credible differences between subgroups categorized by the type and duration of intervention. Dose-response meta-analyses indicated that the risk of regression to normoglycemia increased, and the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes declined in a linear pattern within the range of weight loss from 1% to 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Over a median duration of 24 mo, with weight loss ranging from 1% to 9%, the relationship between weight loss and the progression to type 2 diabetes, as well as the regression to normoglycemia, follows a linear pattern. Any form of lifestyle weight loss intervention, including diet, exercise, or a combination of both, can have beneficial impacts on participants with prediabetes. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42023465322.

Understanding why restrictive trial eligibility criteria are inappropriate.

BACKGROUND: An important difference between explanatory and pragmatic clinical trials concerns eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria are restrictive in explanatory trials, while pragmatic trials are more inclusive or even all-inclusive. METHODS: To better understand the diverging views regarding eligibility criteria, we examine the contrast between theoretical and clinical medicine, and 3 different research contexts: laboratory research, population studies and clinical trials. In each context we review the purpose for selecting study subjects or research material, as well as the type of inductive inference or generalization that is sought by such selection. RESULTS: In each context, selection concerns different things and serves different purposes: In the laboratory, selection concerns the homogenous research material that will help isolate a causal signal. In the epidemiological context selection concerns the (random) sampling method, designed to produce a representative sample of the population. In the clinical trial setting, selection concerns patients in need of care. Restrictive eligibility criteria become inappropriate in the care setting because the aim of the trial is not to represent a population nor to isolate a causal signal, but to find out which patients benefit from treatment. CONCLUSION: The idea of selecting patients comes from methods that belong to theoretical medicine. In the care setting, most clinical trials should be pragmatic and as inclusive as possible.

Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Immunotherapy- Versus Chemotherapy-Based Regimens: Systematic Review and Pooled Analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Immunotherapy-based regimens (IMT) versus cytotoxic chemotherapy (CHT) improved overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (mESCC), but the role of prognostic variables is unclear. The study aims to explore the interaction of prognostic factors with survival after IMT or CHT. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to select trials comparing IMT and CHT regimens in mESCC patients. A meta-analysis of upfront IMT + CHT vs. CHT trials evaluated the overall effect size and heterogeneity between studies. In view of the expected differences between chemotherapy and immunotherapy on the survival curve, to better explore the effect of any prognostic variables on OS, before and after progression, the treatment arms were evaluated as independent cohorts, and ten baseline variables were extracted and assessed by linear regression. RESULTS: Fourteen trials were identified. Seven studies compared upfront CHT + IMT vs. CHT documenting longer OS for CHT + IMT (HR 0.69, CI 0.65-0.72), without heterogeneity (Q = 1.43, p value = 0.968) or differences in the most represented subgroups. Twenty-nine study cohorts were selected from the 14 trials. Median OS and PPS, but not PFS, were significantly increased after IMT compared with CHT. The analysis of baseline variables after CHT documented a favorable prognostic effect for advanced age (ß = 0.768, p value = 0.016), involvement of 0-1 metastasis sites (ß = 0.943, p value = 0.005), and absence of previous radiation therapy (ß = - 0.939, p value = 0.006), while none of them influenced prognosis after IMT. CONCLUSION: The introduction of upfront IMT prolonged mESCC patients OS, mostly improving the outcomes of young patients, with multiple metastasis sites and without previous radiotherapy.

Chemoradiotherapy plus induction or consolidation chemotherapy as total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: Pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and the OPRA randomized phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been used for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The optimal sequence of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and chemotherapy (CT) is a matter of debate. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA multicenter, randomized phase 2 trials to identify patient subsets that could benefit from one TNT sequence over the other regarding disease-free survival (DFS). Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomized to CRT (50.4-54 Gy) with either induction (INCT-CRT) or consolidation CT (CRT-CNCT) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (OPRA) followed by mandatory total mesorectal excision (TME) (CAO/ARO/AIO-12) or selective watch-and-wait surveillance (OPRA). 311 and 324 patients were recruited from June 15, 2015 to January 31, 2018; and from April 12, 2014 to March 30, 2020 in the two trials, respectively. Pretreatment clinical and tumor characteristics included were age, sex, ECOG, cT-category, cN-category, clinical UICC stage, location from anal verge, and tumor grade. FINDINGS: In total, 628 eligible patients were included in the pooled analysis (CAO/ARO/AIO-12, n = 304; OPRA, n = 324). Of those, 313 were randomly assigned to the INCT-CRT group, and 315 to the CRT-CNCT group. Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR, 35-49) months in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial and 61,2 months (IQR, 42-68,4) in the OPRA trial. Pooled analysis of baseline clinical and tumor characteristics did not identify any subgroups of patients that would benefit by the one TNT sequence over the other with regard to DFS. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first pooled analysis of two randomized trials after direct head-to-head comparison of both TNT sequences. Both trials reported higher rates of complete response with CRT-CNCT, and this should be considered the preferred TNT sequence if organ preservation is a priority.

A generalized outcome-adaptive sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design.

A dynamic treatment regime (DTR) is a mathematical representation of a multistage decision process. When applied to sequential treatment selection in medical settings, DTRs are useful for identifying optimal therapies for chronic diseases such as AIDs, mental illnesses, substance abuse, and many cancers. Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) provide a useful framework for constructing DTRs and providing unbiased between-DTR comparisons. A limitation of SMARTs is that they ignore data from past patients that may be useful for reducing the probability of exposing new patients to inferior treatments. In practice, this may result in decreased treatment adherence or dropouts. To address this problem, we propose a generalized outcome-adaptive (GO) SMART design that adaptively unbalances stage-specific randomization probabilities in favor of treatments observed to be more effective in previous patients. To correct for bias induced by outcome adaptive randomization, we propose G-estimators and inverse-probability-weighted estimators of DTR effects embedded in a GO-SMART and show analytically that they are consistent. We report simulation results showing that, compared to a SMART, Response-Adaptive SMART and SMART with adaptive randomization, a GO-SMART design treats significantly more patients with the optimal DTR and achieves a larger number of total responses while maintaining similar or better statistical power.

Pragmatic clinical trials for localized prostate cancer: lessons learned and "three sins".

In "Explanatory and Pragmatic Attitudes in Therapeutic Trials", Schwatrz and Lelouch describe two approaches to the design of trials, "… the first "explanatory", the second "pragmatic". They explained "… the biologist may be interested to know whether the drugs differ in their effects … the explanatory approach". Biologically endpoints might determine whether it was better to give androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before or after external beam radiation (EBRT) (i.e., does the sequence of treatments matter). Alternatively, if the arms focus on a clinical endpoint, this is considered … "the pragmatic approach". An example of a clinically relevant endpoint is overall survival (OS). A real-world example of this are the two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of prophylactic whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). RTOG 9413 evaluated possible interactions between the sequence of drugs and volume irradiated, while RTOG/NRG 0924 focuses on OS. There appears to be a common pattern of "what not to do", or "design errors" made by a number of investigators, that I call the "three sins". I posit that the prospects for a well-designed pragmatic RCT are likely to be high if these "three sins" are avoided/minimized. The "three sins" alluded to are: 1. You can't prove something doesn't work by treating people who don't need the treatment. 2. You can't prove something does not work if the treatment is not done properly. 3. You can't prove something does not work with an underpowered study.

Assessment of Noninferiority Margins in Cardiovascular Medicine Trials.

Background: Noninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials. Methods: We reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included. Results: We analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Recalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

Background: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing long-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. The short-term efficacy and safety of TAVR are proven, but long-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR vs SAVR at the longest available follow-up. The primary end point was death or disabling stroke. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, valve thrombosis, valve gradients, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481856). Results: Seven trials (N = 7785 patients) were included. Weighted mean trial follow-up was 5.76 ± 0.073 years. Overall, no significant difference in death or disabling stroke was observed with TAVR vs SAVR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; P = .70). Mortality risks were similar. TAVR resulted in higher pacemaker implantation and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared to SAVR. Results were consistent across different surgical risk profiles. As compared to SAVR, self-expanding TAVR had lower death or stroke risk (P interaction = .06), valve thrombosis (P interaction = .06), and valve gradients (P interaction < .01) but higher pacemaker implantation rates than balloon-expandable TAVR (P interaction < .01). Conclusions: In severe aortic stenosis, the long-term mortality or disabling stroke risk of TAVR is similar to SAVR, but with higher risk of pacemaker implantation, especially with self-expanding valves. As compared with SAVR, the relative reduction in death or stroke risk and valve thrombosis was greater with self-expanding than with balloon-expandable valves.

A landscape analysis of clinical trials and infant clinical trials in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Introduction: Global inequality in clinical research capacity and service delivery can be indicated simply by the proportion of clinical trials that a country or region has registered in clinical trial registry databases. The proportion of clinical trials registered in Africa is very low at 0.02%, even though the region accounts for approximately 15% of the world's population. Despite the economic challenges in most African countries, they have shown potential for growth and change in recent years. Methods: We conducted desk reviews on the interventional clinical trials done in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria between 2015 to May 2023. The search was done in clinical trials repositories, and journal repositories. The search focused on intervention clinical trials. Data was extracted by screening through the publications and clinical trial platforms. The data extracted from the publications included the type of clinical trial, clinical trial phase, diseases, etc. The data extracted from the reports included: challenges in conducting clinical trials, capacity-building efforts, and the impact of the clinical trial. Results: The number of clinical trial studies identified in Kenya was 113 (28 were on infant clinical trials). The study identified 97 clinical trials in Nigeria, of which 11 studies were on infant clinical trials. In Ethiopia, there were 28 clinical trials and only five were on infant clinical trials. The landscape review also expanded to capacity and gaps in clinical trials in the three countries. The largest proportion of clinical trials carried out in Kenya was on injury, occupational disease, and poisoning, 30.5% (n = 18) and the smallest proportion was on kidney disease, neonatal disease, obstetrics, and gynecology. Most Infant clinical trials were carried out in the area of infections and infestations 33.3% (n = 7). Most of the challenges faced by clinical trials in the three countries include a lack of infrastructure, a lack of human resources, and a lack of financial resources. Implications: There is a need to map clinical trials done by African researchers based in Africa to exclude the trials done by non-African researchers based in Africa. Opportunities for clinical trials should be supported and challenges addressed.

Preventable sources of bias in subgroup analyses and secondary outcomes of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for determining treatment efficacy in medicine. To deter harmful practices such as p-hacking and hypothesizing after the results are known, any analysis of subgroups and secondary outcomes must be documented and pre-specified. However, they can still introduce bias (and routinely do) if they are not treated with the same consideration as the primary analysis. METHODS: We describe several sources of bias that affect subgroup and secondary outcome analyses using published randomized trials and causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). RESULTS: We use the RECOVERY and START trials to elucidate sources of bias in analyses of subgroups and secondary outcomes. Chance imbalance can occur if the distribution of prognostic variables is not sought for any given subgroup analysis as for the main analysis. This differential distribution of prognostic variables can also occur in analyses of secondary outcomes. Selection bias can occur if the subgroup variable is causally related to staying in the trial. Given loss to follow up is not normally addressed in subgroups, attrition bias can pass unnoticed in these cases. In every case, the solution is to take the same considerations for these analyses as we do for primary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Approval of treatments and clinical decisions can occur based on results from subgroup or secondary outcome analyses. Thus, it is important to give them the same treatment as primary analyses to avoid preventable biases.

Health-related quality of life with comprehensive geriatric assessment guided care versus usual care in older adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate if comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)-guided care improves health-related quality of life (HRQL) in older adults with cancer compared to usual care. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through biomedical databases. Meta-analyses using DerSimonian-Laird model summarized the difference in the mean change of HRQL scores from baseline across various time points, with evidence certainty assessed by the GRADE tool. Logistic regression via generalized estimating equations analyzed predictors of HRQL improvement. RESULTS: Potential improvement in the global HRQL score by CGA-guided care at 3 months (Cohen's d 0.27, 95 % CI -0.03-0.58, moderate certainty), could not be excluded. Larger RCTs or those mandating CGA before initiating anti-cancer treatment were predictors of improved HRQL. CONCLUSION: The effects of CGA-guided care on HRQL were variable. Larger RCTs and those mandating pre-treatment CGA tended to report improved HRQL.

Intention to treat and per protocol analyses: differences and similarities.

Randomized trials can take more explanatory or more pragmatic approaches. Pragmatic studies, conducted closer to real-world conditions, assess treatment effectiveness while considering factors like protocol adherence. In these studies, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is fundamental, comparing outcomes regardless of the actual treatment received. Explanatory trials, conducted closer to optimal conditions, evaluate treatment efficacy, commonly with a per protocol (PP) analysis, which includes only outcomes from adherent participants. ITT and PP are strategies used in the conception, design, conduct (protocol execution), analysis, and interpretation of trials. Each serves distinct objectives. While both can be valid, when bias is controlled, and complementary, each has its own limitations. By excluding nonadherent participants, PP analyses can lose the benefits of randomization, resulting in group differences in factors (influencing adherence and outcomes) that were present at baseline. Additionally, clinical and social factors affecting adherence can also operate during follow-up, that is, after randomization. Therefore, incomplete adherence may introduce postrandomization confounding. Conversely, ITT analysis, including all participants regardless of adherence, may dilute treatment effects. Moreover, varying adherence levels could limit the applicability of ITT findings in settings with diverse adherence patterns. Both ITT and PP analyses can be affected by selection bias due to differential losses and nonresponse (ie, missing data) during follow-up. Combining high-quality and comprehensive data with advanced statistical methods, known as g-methods, like inverse probability weighting, may help address postrandomization confounding in PP analysis as well as selection bias in both ITT and PP analyses.

Community case management to accelerate access to healthcare in Mali: a realist process evaluation nested within a cluster randomized trial.

The Proactive Community Case Management (ProCCM) trial in Mali reinforced the health system across both arms with user fee removal, professional community health workers (CHWs) and upgraded primary health centres (PHCs)-and randomized village-clusters to receive proactive home visits by CHWs (intervention) or fixed site-based services by passive CHWs (control). Across both arms, sick children's 24-hour treatment and pregnant women's four or more antenatal visits doubled, and under-5 mortality halved, over 3 years compared with baseline. In the intervention arm, proactive CHW home visits had modest effects on children's curative and women's antenatal care utilization, but no effect on under-5 mortality, compared with the control arm. We aimed to explain these results by examining implementation, mechanisms and context in both arms We conducted a process evaluation with a mixed method convergent design that included 79 in-depth interviews with providers and participants over two time-points, surveys with 195 providers and secondary analyses of clinical data. We embedded realist approaches in novel ways to test, refine and consolidate theories about how ProCCM worked, generating three context-intervention-actor-mechanism-outcome nodes that unfolded in a cascade. First, removing user fees and deploying professional CHWs in every cluster enabled participants to seek health sector care promptly and created a context of facilitated access. Second, health systems support to all CHWs and PHCs enabled equitable, respectful, quality healthcare, which motivated increased, rapid utilization. Third, proactive CHW home visits facilitated CHWs and participants to deliver and seek care, and build relationships, trust and expectations, but these mechanisms were also activated in both arms. Addressing multiple structural barriers to care, user fee removal, professional CHWs and upgraded clinics interacted with providers' and patients' agency to achieve rapid care and child survival in both arms. Proactive home visits expedited or compounded mechanisms that were activated and changed the context across arms.

Improving Diabetes Equity and Advancing Care (IDEA) to optimize team-based care at a safety-net health system for Black and Latine patients living with diabetes: study protocol for a sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is the eighth leading cause of death in the USA. Inequities driven by structural racism and systemic oppression have led to racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment. Diabetes-self management training (DSMT), remote glucose monitoring (RGM), and tailored support from a community health worker (CHW) have the potential to improve outcomes. This study will examine the implementation of these interventions in a safety-net healthcare setting. METHODS: Using implementation science and racial equity principles, this study aims to (1) evaluate the appropriateness; (2) measure fidelity; and (3) compare the effectiveness of varying the combination and sequence of three interventions. An exploratory aim will measure sustainability of intervention adherence and uptake. This mixed-methods trial employs a sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design, patient focus group discussions, and staff interviews. Eligible Black/Latine patients will be recruited using patient lists extracted from the electronic medical record system. After a detailed screening process, eligible patients will be invited to attend an in-person enrollment appointment. Informed consent will be obtained and patients will be randomized to either DSMT or RGM. At 6 months, patients will complete two assessments (diabetes empowerment and diabetes-related distress), and HbA1c values will be reviewed. "Responders" will be considered those who have an HbA1c that has improved by at least one percentage point. "Responders" remain in their first assigned study arm. "Nonresponders" will be randomized to either switch study arms or be paired with a CHW. At 6 months participants will complete two assessments again, and their HbA1c will be reviewed. Twelve patient focus groups, two for each intervention paths, will be conducted along with staff interviews. DISCUSSION: This study is the first, to our knowledge, that seeks to fill critical gaps in our knowledge of optimal sequence and combinations of interventions to support diabetes management among Black and Latine patients receiving care at a safety-net hospital. By achieving the study aims, we will build the evidence for optimizing equitable diabetes management and ultimately reducing racial and ethnic healthcare disparities for patients living in disinvested urban settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06040463. Registered on September 7, 2023.

Robust analysis of stepped wedge trials using composite likelihood models.

Stepped wedge trials (SWTs) are a type of cluster randomized trial that involve repeated measures on clusters and design-induced confounding between time and treatment. Although mixed models are commonly used to analyze SWTs, they are susceptible to misspecification particularly for cluster-longitudinal designs such as SWTs. Mixed model estimation leverages both "horizontal" or within-cluster information and "vertical" or between-cluster information. To use horizontal information in a mixed model, both the mean model and correlation structure must be correctly specified or accounted for, since time is confounded with treatment and measurements are likely correlated within clusters. Alternative non-parametric methods have been proposed that use only vertical information; these are more robust because between-cluster comparisons in a SWT preserve randomization, but these non-parametric methods are not very efficient. We propose a composite likelihood method that focuses on vertical information, but has the flexibility to recover efficiency by using additional horizontal information. We compare the properties and performance of various methods, using simulations based on COVID-19 data and a demonstration of application to the LIRE trial. We found that a vertical composite likelihood model that leverages baseline data is more robust than traditional methods, and more efficient than methods that use only vertical information. We hope that these results demonstrate the potential value of model-based vertical methods for SWTs with a large number of clusters, and that these new tools are useful to researchers who are concerned about misspecification of traditional models.

Integrating Alcohol Biosensors With Ecological Momentary Intervention (EMI) for Alcohol Use: a Synthesis of the Latest Literature and Directions for Future Research.

Purpose of Review: Excessive alcohol use is a major public health concern. With increasing access to mobile technology, novel mHealth approaches for alcohol misuse, such as ecological momentary intervention (EMI), can be implemented widely to deliver treatment content in real time to diverse populations. This review summarizes the state of research in this area with an emphasis on the potential role of wearable alcohol biosensors in future EMI/just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAI) for alcohol use. Recent Findings: JITAI emerged as an intervention design to optimize the delivery of EMI for various health behaviors including substance use. Alcohol biosensors present an opportunity to augment JITAI/EMI for alcohol use with objective information on drinking behavior captured passively and continuously in participants' daily lives, but no prior published studies have incorporated wearable alcohol biosensors into JITAI for alcohol-related problems. Several methodological advances are needed to accomplish this goal and advance the field. Future research should focus on developing standardized data processing, analysis, and interpretation methods for wrist-worn biosensor data. Machine learning algorithms could be used to identify risk factors (e.g., stress, craving, physical locations) for high-risk drinking and develop decision rules for interpreting biosensor-derived transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC) data. Finally, advanced trial design such as micro-randomized trials (MRT) could facilitate the development of biosensor-augmented JITAI. Summary: Wrist-worn alcohol biosensors are a promising potential addition to improve mHealth and JITAI for alcohol use. Additional research is needed to improve biosensor data analysis and interpretation, build new machine learning models to facilitate integration of alcohol biosensors into novel intervention strategies, and test and refine biosensor-augmented JITAI using advanced trial design.

Efficacy and safety of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation for anxiety symptoms: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There is uncertainty about the optimum dose of omega-3 fatty acids for anxiety symptoms. We aimed to find the dose-dependent effect of omega-3 supplementation on anxiety symptoms. METHODS: We systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until December 2022 to find randomized trials that assessed the effects of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation on anxiety symptoms in adults. Investigators performed the literature search and screened the titles/abstracts and full-texts and between-reviewer agreement was assessed as Cohen's kappa coefficient. We conducted a random-effects dose-response meta-analysis to estimate standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: A total of 23 trials with 2189 participants were included. Each 1 gram per day supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids resulted in a moderate decrease in anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.70, 95%CI: -1.17, -0.22; GRADE = low). The non-linear dose-response analysis indicated the greatest improvement at 2 g/d (SMD: -0.93, 95%CI: -1.85, -0.01), and that supplementation in a dose lower than 2 g/d did not affect anxiety symptoms. Omega-3 fatty acids did not increase adverse events (odds ratio: 1.20, 95%CI: 0.89, 1.61; GRADE = moderate). CONCLUSIONS: The present dose-response meta-analysis suggested evidence of very low certainty that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids may significantly improve anxiety symptoms, with the greatest improvements at 2 g/d. More trials with better methodological quality are needed to reach more robust evidence. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022309636).