April 18, 2024: New Living Textbook Chapter Articulates How Investigators Navigated Unexpected Challenges During Pragmatic Clinical Trials

During the course of the years-long pragmatic clinical trials supported by the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, many unanticipated challenges have occurred, some of which have had profound effects on usual care, trial implementation, data systems, and staff. These unanticipated changes threatened the ability of the trials to address the questions they were designed to answer. A new chapter of the Living Textbook—Navigating the Unknown—describes these challenges and the responses of the study teams.

The chapter describes 3 general categories of challenges, each meriting a different response:

  1. If the challenge is a local or temporary issue (for example, a pandemic temporarily shuts down in-person care, or a partnering health system dissolves or is purchased), but the question is still relevant or important and the trial is still feasible, then a workaround may solve the problem.
  2. If the trial is no longer feasible for some reason (for example, the recruitment process is not feasible, or the intervention cannot be delivered as planned), and the question is still relevant, it is necessary to make significant changes to the protocol.
  3. If the question is no longer relevant or important (for example, new evidence or policy changes make the question no longer relevant), the trial should not continue. For this challenge, it may necessary either to stop the trial or to make fundamental changes to address a different question (since the original question is no longer relevant).

The chapter describes local or temporary challenges some of the study teams faced, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, health system mergers, and changes to the electronic health record (EHR). In these cases, the research questions were still relevant and important and the trial designs were still feasible, so workarounds were created to solve the problems.

  • Section 2: Study teams responded to staff turnover, leadership changes, and health system acquisitions and mergers.
  • Section 3: Rapid technology change created unexpected consequences, such as EHR updates causing system changes that affected intervention delivery, and sites switching EHRs systems creating complexities during the trial.
  • Section 4: COVID-19 had significant impacts on trial activities.

Section 5 of the new chapter addresses barriers that resulted from aspects of the protocol that could have impacted recruitment, retention, or implementation in a way that imperiled the ability of trials to answer the question posed by a research study. In these scenarios, researchers found it appropriate to change the protocol or research question—to pivot—in order to glean meaningful, actionable evidence.

Sections 6 and 7 describe challenges that can fall into either category 1 or 2, and investigators had to decide how to respond in real time.

  • Section 6: Clinical practice guidelines and policies changed due to new evidence from observational studies, small trials, and shifting expert opinion, and therefore, usual care changed.
  • Section 7: Quality improvement initiatives were launched to address similar problems, threatening the ability to discern differences between arms of the trial.

The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems to test interventions that address urgent public health problems faced by delivery systems. They involve hundreds to thousands of participants and generally include usual care as a control arm. One of the most important lessons learned through the course of these trials is that unexpected change is a given.

For more, see the section on Unanticipated Changes in the Analysis Plan chapter of the Living Textbook.

January 8, 2024: Pragmatic Trials Researchers Share Lessons From Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Electronic Health Record

In a new article from the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, investigators from 6 of the program’s pragmatic clinical trials share case examples of the challenges they encountered in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in their trials and the strategies they used to address them.

The article was published this week in Contemporary Clinical Trials.

PRO measures reflect meaningful aspects of health and provide information about outcomes that are experienced uniquely by the patient, such as pain intensity, fatigue, and satisfaction with social roles. The challenges described by the authors include:

  • competing healthcare system priorities
  • clinician buy-in for adoption of PRO measures
  • low adoption and reach of technology in low-resource settings
  • lack of consensus and standardization of PRO selection and administration in the electronic health record

The authors suggest that, given the multiple barriers, study teams may need to use separate data collection systems or integrate externally collected PRO data into the electronic health record.

“When using patient-reported outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials investigators must make important decisions about whether to use data collected from the participating health system’s electronic health record, integrate externally collected patient-reported outcome data into the electronic health record, or collect these data in separate systems for their studies.”

Learn more about the NIH Collaboratory Trials.

This work was a collaboration between the Electronic Health Records Core and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Core of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

November 28, 2023: Workshop Summary Now Available From ‘Getting the Right Evidence to Decision-Makers Faster’

The workshop summary is now available from the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory’s recent workshop, “Getting the Right Evidence to Decision-Makers Faster.” The 2-day workshop explored the critical cycle of evidence generation by researchers to decision-making by healthcare system leaders to implement the findings of pragmatic clinical trials conducted within healthcare systems.

The workshop included 4 panels:

  • Panel 1: How Have Health Systems Made Decisions Based on Evidence Collected in PCTs?

    • Panelists: Devon Check, Vincent Mor, Lynn DeBar, Kathryn Glassberg, Douglas Zatzick, Eileen Bulger, Susan Huang, Kenneth Sands, Edward Septimus; Moderator: Gregory Simon
  • Panel 2: How Do We Generate the Right Evidence to Support Decision-Makers?

    • Panelists: Kenneth Sands, Eileen Bulger, Edward Septimus, Amy Kilbourne, Rosa Gonzalez-Guarda, Patrick Heagerty; Moderator: Hayden Bosworth
  • Panel 3: Learning Faster

    • Panelists: Gloria Coronado, Natalia Morone, Corita Grudzen, Kevin Chan, Pearl O’Rourke, Cheryl Boyce, Andrea Cook; Moderator: Kevin Weinfurt
  • Panel 4: Potential Structures and Incentives for Faster Learning

    • Panelists: David Chambers, Wynne Norton, Tisha Wiley, Kenneth Sands, Edward Septimus, Gloria Coronado, Natalia Morone, Corita Grudzen; Moderator: Richard Platt

Access the complete workshop materials, including slides and videocast recordings, as well as the keynote presentation by Andrew Bindman, executive vice president and chief medical officer for Kaiser Permanente.

Keynote: Can the COVID-19 Crisis Lead to Reformation of the Evidence Generation Ecosystem?

Keynote: Can the COVID-19 Crisis Lead to Reformation of the Evidence Generation Ecosystem?

Description

Dr. Robert Califf, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, shares what he believes are the most important drivers that will improve the evidence generation ecosystem. The effective use of digital information, such as data from the EHR, telehealth and apps should are merely a first step. Dr. Califf suggests we focus on the purpose of clinical trials: getting important questions answered quickly.

Speaker

Robert Califf, MD
Comissioner of Food and Drugs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration

 

Related

The Embedded Pragmatic Clinical Trial Ecosystem

Learning Health Systems and Embedded Clinical Trials

Assessing Data Quality

Assessing Data Quality

Description

Assessing data quality is a key step in research that uses data from the electronic health record. These data are a surrogate for clinical phenomena, meaning they represent an interpretation of clinical information about a patient instead of absolute truth. This video describes steps for assessing data quality, including identifying variation between populations at different sites and assessments of accuracy, completeness, and consistency.

Speaker

Rachel Richesson, PhD Headshot of Rachel Richesson
Professor of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School
Electronic Health Records Core Co-chair

 

Related

Data as a Surrogate for Clinical Phenomena

Data Quality Measures

October 11, 2023: In This Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Incorporating Social Determinants of Health Into PCORnet

Headshot of Dr. Keith Marsolo
Keith Marsolo, PhD

In this Friday’s PCT Grand Rounds, Keith Marsolo of Duke University will present “Incorporating Social Determinants of Health Into PCORnet.”

The Grand Rounds session will be held on Friday, October 13, 2023, at 1:00 pm eastern.

Marsolo is an associate professor of population health sciences at Duke University and a cochair of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory’s Electronic Health Records Core Working Group.

Join the online meeting.

EHR-Based Outcome Measurement in the LIRE Trial

EHR-Based Outcome Measurement in the LIRE Trial

Description

In this video, Dr. Jerry Jarvik, PI of the LIRE trial, summarizes the challenges his team faced when embedding a radiology reporting intervention into the electronic health record.

Biography

Jerry Jarvik, MD, MPH
Radiologist, University of Washington Medical Center
Professor of Radiology, Neuroradiology, Health Services and Neurological Surgery, University of Washington
Adjunct Professor of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine and Pharmacy
LIRE NIH Collaboratory Trial PI

Related

Implementing and Monitoring the Delivery of an Intervention

View the full Grand Rounds video: Experiences From the Collaboratory PCTs

View the complete collection of EHR Workshop video modules.

Headshot of Rachel Richesson

Uses of EHRs in NIH Collaboratory Projects

Uses of EHRs in NIH Collaboratory Projects

Description

In the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory ePCTs, the electronic health record has been used to determine eligibility, deliver the intervention, and assess outcomes. This video explores challenges and lessons learned encountered by the ICD-Pieces Trial.

Speaker

Rachel Richesson, PhDHeadshot of Rachel Richesson
Professor of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School
Electronic Health Records Core Co-chair

 

Related

Living Textbook Chapter: Endpoints and Outcomes: Inpatient Endpoints in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Data Infrastructure for Implementing the PROVEN Trial

Data Infrastructure for Implementing the PROVEN Trial

Description

In this video, Dr. Vince Mor, Co-Principal investigator of the PROVEN trial, shares the data infrastructure that was essential to implementing and monitoring PROVEN.

Biography

Photo of Vincent Mor

Vince Mor, PhD
Florence Pirce Grant University Professor of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Professor of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University
PROVEN NIH Collaboratory Trial co-PI

 

Related

Acquiring Claims Data and CMS Research-Identifiable Files

View the full Grand Rounds video: Experiences From the Collaboratory PCTs.

View the complete collection of EHR Workshop video modules.

August 31, 2023: FDA’s Robert Califf and Coauthors Assert More Is Needed to Achieve Learning Health Care

A graphic that includes the cover image from the August 2023 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics. The text in the graphic reads as follows: "American Journal of Bioethics Special issue on pragmatic trials, featuring target articles from the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory."In an article published this month in the American Journal of Bioethics, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and coauthors suggest that—despite the potential of embedded pragmatic research to generate information to improve clinical practice and public health policy—it is still relatively uncommon in US healthcare.

“Simply stated, what we are currently doing does not work, and in the face of declining health status we lack answers to critical questions about what we should be doing in health care and public health practice.”

The authors state 3 major obstacles:

  • Inadequate data systems: Electronic health records are not designed for research use, and are driven by billing codes and reimbursement structures.
  • Data sharing malaise: We have failed to develop a convincing paradigm for sharing individual-level data from routine healthcare delivery
  • Current oversight: Research oversight is still not designed to facilitate embedded pragmatic clinical trials or research using real-world evidence.

The authors suggest that achieving a learning health system will require

  • More collaboration between health systems and businesses involved in healthcare
  • More innovative structures for data sharing across institutions
  • Incentives for building the sophisticated infrastructure necessary to enable this work
  • Considerations from the bioethics community about how best to foster this research while respecting all those who participate

This article was part of a special issue of the American Journal of Bioethics on pragmatic clinical trials. Members of the Ethics and Regulatory Core contributed the target articles to this issue regarding investigator obligations and the clinician’s duty to participate in embedded research.