Lawmakers' use of scientific evidence can be improved.

Core to the goal of scientific exploration is the opportunity to guide future decision-making. Yet, elected officials often miss opportunities to use science in their policymaking. This work reports on an experiment with the US Congress-evaluating the effects of a randomized, dual-population (i.e., researchers and congressional offices) outreach model for supporting legislative use of research evidence regarding child and family policy issues. In this experiment, we found that congressional offices randomized to the intervention reported greater value of research for understanding issues than the control group following implementation. More research use was also observed in legislation introduced by the intervention group. Further, we found that researchers randomized to the intervention advanced their own policy knowledge and engagement as well as reported benefits for their research following implementation.

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided.

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments.

Randomized experiments have enormous potential to improve human welfare in many domains, including healthcare, education, finance, and public policy. However, such "A/B tests" are often criticized on ethical grounds even as similar, untested interventions are implemented without objection. We find robust evidence across 16 studies of 5,873 participants from three diverse populations spanning nine domains-from healthcare to autonomous vehicle design to poverty reduction-that people frequently rate A/B tests designed to establish the comparative effectiveness of two policies or treatments as inappropriate even when universally implementing either A or B, untested, is seen as appropriate. This "A/B effect" is as strong among those with higher educational attainment and science literacy and among relevant professionals. It persists even when there is no reason to prefer A to B and even when recipients are treated unequally and randomly in all conditions (A, B, and A/B). Several remaining explanations for the effect-a belief that consent is required to impose a policy on half of a population but not on the entire population; an aversion to controlled but not to uncontrolled experiments; and a proxy form of the illusion of knowledge (according to which randomized evaluations are unnecessary because experts already do or should know "what works")-appear to contribute to the effect, but none dominates or fully accounts for it. We conclude that rigorously evaluating policies or treatments via pragmatic randomized trials may provoke greater objection than simply implementing those same policies or treatments untested.

Incorporating and interpreting regulatory guidance on estimands in diabetes clinical trials: The PIONEER 1 randomized clinical trial as an example.

Regulatory guidelines describe the use of estimands in designing and conducting clinical trials. Estimands ensure alignment of the objectives with the design, conduct and analysis of a trial. An estimand is defined by four inter-related attributes: the population of interest, the variable (endpoint) of interest, the way intercurrent events are handled and the population level summary. A trial may employ multiple estimands to evaluate treatment effects from different perspectives in order to address different scientific questions. As estimands may be an unfamiliar concept for many clinicians treating diabetes, this paper reviews the estimand concept and uses the PIONEER 1 phase 3a clinical trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs placebo, as an example of the way in which estimands can be implemented and interpreted. In the PIONEER 1 trial, two estimands were employed for each efficacy endpoint and were labelled as: (a) the treatment policy estimand, used to assess the treatment effect regardless of use of rescue medication or discontinuation of trial product, and provides a broad perspective of the treatment effect in the population of patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice; and (b) the trial product estimand, used to assess the treatment effect if all patients had continued to use trial product for the planned duration of the trial without rescue medication, thereby providing information on the anticipated treatment effect of the medication. Both approaches are complementary to understanding the effect of the studied treatments.

Diversity in Medical Device Clinical Trials: Do We Know What Works for Which Patients?

Policy Points: A 1993 law required the National Institutes of Health to include women and racial and ethnic minorities in relevant research studies. Most federal health agencies adopted the same policy, but the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not. A 2012 law encouraged the FDA to ensure that new medical products be analyzed for safety and effectiveness for key demographic patient groups. Our study of high-risk medical devices reviewed by the FDA in 2014-2017 found that due to lack of patient diversity and publicly available data, clinicians and patients often cannot determine which devices are safe and effective for specific demographic groups. CONTEXT: Demographic differences can influence the safety and effectiveness of medical devices; however, clinical trials of devices for adults have historically underrepresented women, people of color, and patients over age 65. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety and Innovation Act became law in 2012, encouraging greater diversity and subgroup analyses. In 2013, the FDA reported that there was diversity in clinical trials considered "pivotal" for approval decisions and that subgroup analyses were conducted for most applications for the highest-risk medical devices. However, the FDA's report did not specify whether analyses included sufficient numbers to be meaningful, whether analyses were conducted for most major subgroups, or whether analyses included safety, effectiveness, or accuracy. METHODS: We examined publicly available documents for all 22 medical devices that the FDA designated "highest risk" or "novel," were reviewed through the premarket approval pathway, and were scrutinized at FDA public meetings from 2014 to 2017. We evaluated patient demographics and subgroup analyses for all pivotal trials. FINDINGS: Only 3 (14%) of the devices provided subgroup analyses for both effectiveness and safety or both sensitivity and selectivity for gender, race, and age. However, 55% of the devices reported both of those subgroup analyses for at least 1 of the 3 subgroups. Whether analyses were reported or not, the number of patients in most subgroups was too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Subgroup analyses were more likely to be reported to the FDA's Advisory Committees than in the FDA's public reviews or labeling. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a law encouraging more diversity and subgroup analyses in pivotal trials used as the basis for FDA approval, the results of our study indicate relatively few subgroup analyses are publicly available for the highest-risk and novel medical devices. The lack of subgroup analyses makes it impossible to inform patients or physicians as to whether many newly approved medical devices are safe and effective for specific demographic subgroups defined by gender, race, and age.

Precision medicine in diabetes and diabetic kidney disease: Regulatory considerations.

Over the past 15 years, three new classes of drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes based on effects on glycemic control. Although large randomized controlled trials have played an important role in characterizing the efficacy and safety of these agents on a population level, questions remain about how best to individualize therapy and target the "right" medicine to the "right" patient. In contrast, few medicines have been approved to treat diabetic kidney disease and initiatives have been launched on both sides of the Atlantic to facilitate the development of effective personalized medicines for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease. Increasingly, "omics," imaging and other biomarkers will be used to match patients with therapies to which they are likely to respond best. This review addresses regulatory considerations related to precision medicine, draws lessons learned from other therapeutic areas and discusses efforts undertaken by the European (EMA) and United States (FDA) to facilitate the development of such therapies. Moving forward, an integrated approach that makes use of predictive preclinical models, innovative trial designs, observational "real-world" data and novel statistical methodologies will likely be needed to complement inherently smaller RCTs conducted in more selected populations. Patient involvement will also be critical. Regulatory agencies are ready to engage in such approaches.

Registry-Based Pragmatic Trials in Heart Failure: Current Experience and Future Directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in heart failure (HF) are becoming increasingly complex and expensive to conduct and if positive deliver expensive therapy tested only in selected populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Electronic health records and clinical cardiovascular quality registries are providing opportunities for pragmatic and registry-based prospective randomized clinical trials (RRCTs). Simplified regulatory, ethics, and consent procedures; recruitment integrated into real-world care; and simplified or automated baseline and outcome collection allow assessment of study power and feasibility, fast and efficient recruitment, delivery of generalizable findings at low cost, and potentially evidence-based and novel use of generic drugs with low costs to society. There have been no RRCTs in HF to date. Major challenges include generating funding, international collaboration, and the monitoring of safety and adherence for chronic HF treatments. Here, we use the Spironolactone Initiation Registry Randomized Interventional Trial in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (SPIRRIT-HFpEF), to be conducted in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, to exemplify the advantages and challenges of HF RRCTs.

The Risks to Patient Privacy from Publishing Data from Clinical Anesthesia Studies.

In this article, we consider the privacy implications of posting data from small, randomized trials, observational studies, or case series in anesthesia from a few (e.g., 1-3) hospitals. Prior to publishing such data as supplemental digital content, the authors remove attributes that could be used to re-identify individuals, a process known as "anonymization." Posting health information that has been properly "de-identified" is assumed to pose no risks to patient privacy. Yet, computer scientists have demonstrated that this assumption is flawed. We consider various realistic scenarios of how the publication of such data could lead to breaches of patient privacy. Several examples of successful privacy attacks are reviewed, as well as the methods used. We survey the latest models and methods from computer science for protecting health information and their application to posting data from small anesthesia studies. To illustrate the vulnerability of such published data, we calculate the "population uniqueness" for patients undergoing one or more surgical procedures using data from the State of Texas. For a patient selected uniformly at random, the probability that an adversary could match this patient's record to a unique record in the state external database was 42.8% (SE < 0.1%). Despite the 42.8% being an unacceptably high level of risk, it underestimates the risk for patients from smaller states or provinces. We propose an editorial policy that greatly reduces the likelihood of a privacy breach, while supporting the goal of transparency of the research process.

Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems.

Cluster randomized trials randomly assign groups of individuals to examine research questions or test interventions and measure their effects on individuals. Recent emphasis on quality improvement, comparative effectiveness, and learning health systems has prompted expanded use of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in routine health-care settings, which in turn poses practical and ethical challenges that current oversight frameworks may not adequately address. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides a basis for considering many issues related to pragmatic cluster randomized trials but challenges remain, including some arising from the current US research and health-care regulations. In order to examine the ethical, regulatory, and practical questions facing pragmatic cluster randomized trials in health-care settings, the National Institutes of Health Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory convened a workshop in Bethesda, Maryland, in July 2013. Attendees included experts in clinical trials, patient advocacy, research ethics, and research regulations from academia, industry, the National Institutes of Health Collaboratory, and other federal agencies. Workshop participants identified substantial barriers to implementing these types of cluster randomized trials, including issues related to research design, gatekeepers and governance in health systems, consent, institutional review boards, data monitoring, privacy, and special populations. We describe these barriers and suggest means for understanding and overcoming them to facilitate pragmatic cluster randomized trials in health-care settings.

Variation of community consultation and public disclosure for a pediatric multi-centered "Exception from Informed Consent" trial.

BACKGROUND: The US federal regulation "Exception from Informed Consent for Emergency Research," 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus, there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation. AIM: To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by Institutional Review Boards, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, Exception from Informed Consent, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial. METHODS: Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of the 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment. RESULTS: Every Institutional Review Board, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of Exception from Informed Consent regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. Institutional Review Boards required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation, and news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. In all, 158 chose to be included in the "Opt Out" list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under Exception from Informed Consent, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in Institutional Review Boards' interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt out of Exception from Informed Consent research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.

Enhancing trial integrity by protecting the independence of data monitoring committees in clinical trials.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs) have important roles in safeguarding patient interests and enhancing trial integrity and credibility. To effectively fulfill their responsibilities, DMCs should be independent of study sponsors, study investigators, and caregivers managing study participants. Unfortunately, in real-world settings where DMCs are in place, there are some practices that threaten to diminish the level of independence of these committees. To address this, some important approaches should be considered: A DMC charter should outline the roles and responsibilities of the DMC without appearing to be a legal contract; the meetings of the DMC should be led by its chair, ideally with a meeting format that ensures independence from the investigators and sponsor; the DMC and those having leadership roles in the monitoring process should have adequate training and experience; procedures should be in place to enable the DMC to have access to interim safety and efficacy data that are accurate, current, and comprehensive; these data should be presented to the DMC unblinded by treatment group, while being kept confidential from all others; DMC recommendations should be developed through consensus development rather than by casting votes; creative approaches are needed for the engagement of DMC members to increase the transparency such that they are neither employees of nor consultants to the sponsor of the trial; meaningful conflicts of interest should be identified and addressed; and finally, members of DMCs should have adequate indemnification that provides effective protection.

Varying ethics rules in clinical research and routine patient care--research ethics committee chairpersons' views in Finland.

BACKGROUND: To present empirical data on how the variation in regulating clinical research and patient care was perceived in Finland between 2009 and 2012. METHODS: Notes of interviews with 22 research ethics committee (REC) chairpersons were analyzed to identify whether differences in the regulation of clinical research and patient care were addressed. REC chairpersons' opinions on three imaginary cases of clinical research projects challenging current research ethics rules (vignettes) were requested with a questionnaire; 18 of the 22 interviewed chairpersons responded. RESULTS: Based on REC chairpersons' interviews, the differences between care and research regulation were not considered important issues in Finland. In the vignettes, REC chairpersons' assumptions on how their REC would decide varied in regard to allowing research without informed consent, while solutions that are not allowed by current law were even anticipated. Mostly, but not always, the chairpersons' own personal view agreed with their REC. CONCLUSIONS: The distinction between care and research regulation has not been publicly challenged by Finnish RECs, even though it is a challenge when research relevant to health care is carried out. There is a need for debate and changes in laws and practices.

Ethical considerations for conducting a randomized controlled trial in transport.

Although recent studies support the rapid transfer of patients experiencing time-sensitive emergencies, limited data exist to support the use of air transport for nonurgent patient transfers. The nature of medical transport and the heterogeneity of patients who are transferred present unique challenges in designing and conducting clinical research trials that could contribute to the evidence-based decision making for patient care and transport. The current regulatory framework presents several barriers to conducting such research in the medical transport setting. We present a hypothetic study that randomizes patients to either ground or air transport as an exemplar. We discuss informed consent, risk, and the impracticality of conducting community consultations in a medical transport setting. Finally, recommendations for potential changes to current regulations are presented. These are directed at facilitating the conduct of emergency research through a system of oversight that integrates characteristics of quality improvement and health services research.

Misleading presentations in functional food trials led by contract research organizations were frequently observed in Japan: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: The functional food market has experienced significant growth, leading to an uptick in clinical trials conducted by contract research organizations (CROs). Research focusing on CRO-managed trials and the communication of trial outcomes to the consumer market remains underexplored. This metaepidemiological study aims to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) facilitated by prominent CROs in Japan and to examine the quality of the representations used to convey their results to consumers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study focused on the food trials that were registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry or the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform by the top 5 CROs. Press releases of study results or advertisements of food products based on the study results were identified by conducting a Google search. The risk of bias in the RCT publications was independently assessed by 2 reviewers, who also evaluated the presence of "spin" in the abstracts and full texts. An assessment of "spin" in press releases/advertisements was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 76 RCT registrations, 32 RCT publications, and 11 press releases/advertisements were included. Approximately 72% of the RCT publications exhibited a high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting. "Spin" was present in the results of the abstract (72%), abstract conclusion (81%), full-text results (44%), and full-text conclusion (84%). "Spin" appeared in 73% of press releases/advertisements due to the selective outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: Functional food presentations in Japan frequently contained "spin." The Japanese government should more rigorously check whether food manufacturers report outcomes selectively.

Why were so few randomized trials of public health and social measures conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic? The Norwegian experience.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized trials of public health and social measures were carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report on the major barriers we faced when we tried to run such trials. METHODS: We reviewed all randomized trials proposed and initiated by the Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research in Norway during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 18 proposed trials, 11 trials were not implemented. One of the key legal and ethical barriers to conducting the trials was the Norwegian Health Research Act, which demands informed consent from all participants who are exposed to an intervention. A lack of sufficient political support was also a challenge, as was unpredictability, due to shifting disease incidence and changing recommendations from the authorities. CONCLUSION: Strengthening the evidence base for public health and social measures in pandemics will require political and public understanding and support and a legal framework that allows for the conduct of such trials.

Regulatory issues of propensity score methodology application to drug and device safety studies.

While randomized, well-controlled, clinical trials have been viewed as the gold standard in the evaluation of medical products, including drugs, biological products, and medical devices, it is not uncommon for safety assessment to be performed using observational studies, for ethical or practical reasons. In observational studies, various biases could be introduced in every stage and aspect of study, and consequently the resulting statistical inference may carry a lower level of scientific assurance, compared to randomized trials. To ensure the objectivity of study design and interpretability of the results, it is critical to address the challenges of such studies. In this paper, we share regulatory considerations on the prospective design of observational studies to address safety issues using propensity score methodology.

Setting up a randomized clinical trial in the UK: approvals and process.

Randomized clinical trials are considered the 'gold standard' in primary research for healthcare interventions. However, they can be expensive and time-consuming to set up and require many approvals to be in place before they can begin. This paper outlines how to determine what approvals are required for a trial, the background of each approval and the process for obtaining them.