A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of symptom management for cancer survivors during treatment and their informal caregivers.

CONTEXT: Many cancer survivors and their informal caregivers experience multiple symptoms during the survivor's treatment. OBJECTIVE: Test relative effectiveness and optimal sequencing of two evidence-based interventions for symptom management. METHODS: In this sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART), survivors of solid tumors with elevated depression or anxiety and their caregivers as dyads were initially randomized after baseline assessment in a 3:1 ratio to the Symptom Management and Survivorship Handbook (SMSH, N = 277 dyads) intervention or SMSH plus 8 weeks of telephone interpersonal counseling (TIPC, N = 97 dyads). After 4 weeks, survivors who were not responding (no improvement or worsening score on depression and/or anxiety item) to SMSH only and their caregivers were re-randomized to continue with SMSH alone (N = 44 dyads) to give it more time or to SMSH + TIPC (N = 44 dyads). Mixed effects and generalized linear models compared severity of depression, anxiety, and a summed index of 16 other symptoms over weeks 1-13 and week 17 between randomized groups and among three dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs). Dyads received SMSH only for 12 weeks (DTR1); SMSH for 12 weeks with 8 weeks of TIPC added from week 1 (DTR2); and SMSH for 4 weeks followed by the combined SMSH + TIPC for 8 weeks if no response at 4 weeks (DTR3). RESULTS: Survivors randomized initially to SMSH alone had significantly lower anxiety over weeks 1-13 compared to those randomized to the combined SMSH + TIPC. In comparing DTRs, survivor's anxiety was significantly lower at week 13 for DTR1 compared to DTR2 with no other main effects for survivors or caregivers. Exploratory moderation analyses indicated a potential benefit of adding TIPC for caregivers of non-responders with elevated baseline symptoms. CONCLUSION: SMSH + TIPC did not result in better symptom outcomes at week 17 than SMSH alone. Lower intensity SMSH may improve depression and anxiety symptoms for most survivors and their caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrails.gov ID number, NCT03743415; approved and posted on 11/16/2018.

Intervention Optimization: A Paradigm Shift and Its Potential Implications for Clinical Psychology.

To build a coherent knowledge base about what psychological intervention strategies work, develop interventions that have positive societal impact, and maintain and increase this impact over time, it is necessary to replace the classical treatment package research paradigm. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an alternative paradigm that integrates ideas from behavioral science, engineering, implementation science, economics, and decision science. MOST enables optimization of interventions to strategically balance effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency. In this review we provide an overview of MOST, discuss several experimental designs that can be used in intervention optimization, consider how the investigator can use experimental results to select components for inclusion in the optimized intervention, discuss the application of MOST in implementation science, and list future issues in this rapidly evolving field. We highlight the feasibility of adopting this new research paradigm as well as its potential to hasten the progress of psychological intervention science.

Nurse-led sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of nudging intervention for early antiretroviral therapy initiation among patients with HIV/AIDS: Implementation study protocol.

AIMS: In China, more than 30% of patients have not initiated treatment within 30 days of HIV diagnosis. Delayed initiation has a detrimental influence on disease outcomes and increases HIV transmission. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a nurse-led antiretroviral therapy initiation nudging intervention for people newly diagnosed with HIV in China to find the optimal intervention implementation strategy. METHODS: A Hybrid Type II sequential multiple assignment randomized trial will be conducted at four Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Hunan, China. This study will recruit 447 people newly diagnosed with HIV aged ≥18 years and randomly assign them into two intervention groups and one control group. On top of the regular counselling services and referrals, intervention groups will receive a 4-week, 2-phase intervention based on the dual-system theory and the nudge theory. The control group will follow the currently recommended referral procedures. The primary outcomes are whether treatment is initiated, as well as the length of time it takes. The study outcomes will be measured at the baseline, day 15, day 30, week 12, week 24 and week 48. Generalized estimating equations and survival analysis will be used to compare effectiveness and explore factors associated with antiretroviral therapy initiation. Both qualitative and quantitative information will be collected to assess implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: Existing strategies mostly target institutional-level factors, with little consideration given to patients' decision-making. To close this gap, we aim to develop an effective theory-driven nudging strategy to improve early ART initiation. IMPACT: This nurse-led study will help to prevent delayed initiation by employing implementation science strategies for people newly diagnosed with HIV. This study contributes to the United Nations' objective of ending the AIDS pandemic by 2030. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300070140. The trial was prospectively registered before the first participant was recruited. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The nudging intervention was finalized through the Nominal Group Technique where we invited five experts in the related field and five people living with HIV to participate.

A framework for testing non-inferiority in a three-arm, sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial.

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design is becoming increasingly used in the field of precision medicine. This design allows comparisons of sequences of adaptive interventions tailored to the individual patient. Superiority testing is usually the initial goal in order to determine which embedded adaptive intervention yields the best primary outcome on average. When direct superiority is not evident, yet an adaptive intervention poses other benefits, then non-inferiority testing is warranted. Non-inferiority testing in the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial setup is rather new and involves the specification of non-inferiority margin and other important assumptions that are often unverifiable internally. These challenges are not specific to sequential multiple assignment randomized trial and apply to two-arm non-inferiority trials that do not include a standard-of-care (or placebo) arm. To address some of these challenges, three-arm non-inferiority trials that include the standard-of-care arm are proposed. However, methods developed so far for three-arm non-inferiority trials are not sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-specific. This is because apart from embedded adaptive interventions, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial typically does not include a third standard-of-care arm. In this article, we consider a three-arm sequential multiple assignment randomized trial from an National Institutes of Health-funded study of symptom management strategies among people undergoing cancer treatment. Motivated by that example, we propose a novel data analytic method for non-inferiority testing in the framework of three-arm sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for the first time. Sample size and power considerations are discussed through extensive simulation studies to elucidate our method.

Contingency management plus acceptance and commitment therapy for initial cocaine abstinence: Results of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART).

BACKGROUND: This study tested an adaptive intervention for optimizing abstinence outcomes over phases of treatment for cocaine use disorder using a SMART design. Phase 1 assessed whether 4 weeks of contingency management (CM) improved response with the addition of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Phase 2 assessed pharmacological augmentation with modafinil (MOD) vs. placebo (PLA) for individuals not achieving abstinence during Phase 1. METHOD: For Phase 1 of treatment, participants (N=118) were randomly allocated to ACT+CM or Drug Counseling (DC+CM), the comparison condition. At week 4, treatment response was defined as the submission of six consecutive cocaine-negative urine drug screens (UDS). Phase 1 non-responders were re-randomized to MOD or PLA as adjunct to their initial treatment. Phase 1 responders continued receiving their initial treatment. Primary outcomes included response rate and proportion of cocaine-negative UDS for Phase 1 and 2. Analyses used Bayesian inference with 80% pre-specified as the posterior probability (PP) threshold constituting moderate evidence that an effect exists. RESULTS: Phase 1 response was higher in the ACT+CM group (24.5%) compared to the DC+CM group (17.5%; PP = 84.5%). In Phase 2, the proportion of cocaine-negative UDS among Phase 1 responders did not differ by initial treatment (PP = 61.8%) but remained higher overall compared to Phase 1 non-responders (PPs > 99%). No evidence of an effect favoring augmentation with MOD was observed. DISCUSSION: Adding ACT to CM increased abstinence initiation. Initial responders were more likely to remain abstinent compared to initial non-responders, for whom modafinil was not an effective pharmacotherapy augmentation strategy.

Increasing goals of care conversations in primary care: Study protocol for a cluster randomized, pragmatic, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care conversations explore seriously ill patients' values to guide medical decision making and often inform decisions about life sustaining treatments. Ideally, conversations occur before a health crisis between patients and clinicians in the outpatient setting. In the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, most conversations still occur in the inpatient setting. Strategies are needed to improve implementation of outpatient, primary care goals of care conversations. METHODS: We plan a cluster randomized (clinician-level) sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient implementation strategies on the outcome of goals of care conversation documentation when delivered in combination with clinician implementation strategies. Across three VA healthcare system sites, we will enroll primary care clinicians with low rates of goals of care conversations and their patients with serious medical illness in the top 10th percentile of risk of hospitalization or death. We will compare the effectiveness of sequences of implementation strategies and explore how patient and site factors modify implementation strategy effects. Finally, we will conduct a mixed-methods evaluation to understand implementation strategy success or failure. The design includes two key innovations: (1) strategies that target both clinicians and patients and (2) sequential strategies with increased intensity for non-responders. CONCLUSION: This study aims to determine the effect of different sequences and combinations of implementation strategies on primary care documentation of goals of care conversations. Study partners, including the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care and Office of Primary Care, can consider policies based on study findings.

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments.

AIM: To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. DESIGN: Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). SETTING: Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. INTERVENTIONS: In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. MEASUREMENTS: The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. FINDINGS: Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.