Translation of clinical trials into clinical practice

Rates of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in England and Wales: Impact of COURAGE and ORBITA Trials

Background

There are limited data about how COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) and ORBITA (Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trials have impacted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practices at regional or national level. We evaluated temporal trends in elective PCI rates for stable angina and, specifically, examined the impact of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials on PCI practices in England and Wales.

Methods and Results

We used national PCI data comprising >1.2 million patients undergoing PCI between January 2006 and December 2019. Patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed, and temporal trends in PCI rates for stable angina were compared before and after the publication of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials. Of 1 245 802 PCI procedures, 430 248 (34.5%) were performed for stable angina. Over the study period, the number of elective PCI procedures per year (30 823 in 2006 to 34 103 in 2019) and per 100 000 population estimates (50.7 in 2006 to 58.4 in 2019) remained stable. The proportion of patients undergoing elective PCI without angina symptoms almost doubled from 5.1% to 9.7%. The incidence rate of elective PCI volume after the COURAGE trial, published in 2007, was not different from before the trial was published (incidence rate ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.69–1.62]). It also remained stable after the publication of the ORBITA trial in 2017 (incidence rate ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.74–1.23]).

Conclusions

In this nationwide analysis, rates of elective PCI for stable angina remained stable over 14 years. Publication of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials had no impact on elective PCI activity.

Assessing the adoption of clinical trial results summary disclosure to patients and the public

Introduction: There is a broad global acknowledgment that the timely and effective communication of clinical trial results is not only essential to the development, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions but also meets an ethical obligation to inform patients and the public. Areas covered: At this time, less than 2% of all clinical trials completed or terminated within the past three years returned plain language summaries to study volunteers. This estimate is far below our forecast made 10 years ago when we evaluated a pilot effort to demonstrate a feasible and efficient process for communicating summary results to patients. At that time, we anticipated that research sponsors would embrace the obligation and in so doing would improve their relationship with and trust among their study volunteers and patient communities. This article discusses why adoption remains low and suggests that the absence of clear regulatory requirements and their enforcement are the primary cause. Expert opinion: The authors anticipate that the regulatory environment will tighten and that public, patient and patient advocate appetite and expectation for the disclosure of clinical trial results summaries in plain language will intensify during the next 18 months. These pressures will compel research sponsors to accelerate adoption.

German second-opinion network for testicular cancer: sealing the leaky pipe between evidence and clinical practice

In 2006, the German Testicular Cancer Study Group initiated an extensive evidence-based national second-opinion network to improve the care of testicular cancer patients. The primary aims were to reflect the current state of testicular cancer treatment in Germany and to analyze the project's effect on the quality of care delivered to testicular cancer patients. A freely available internet-based platform was developed for the exchange of data between the urologists seeking advice and the 31 second-opinion givers. After providing all data relevant to the primary treatment decision, urologists received a second opinion on their therapy plan within <48 h. Endpoints were congruence between the first and second opinion, conformity of applied therapy with the corresponding recommendation and progression-free survival rate of the introduced patients. Significance was determined by two-sided Pearson's χ2 test. A total of 1,284 second-opinion requests were submitted from November 2006 to October 2011, and 926 of these cases were eligible for further analysis. A discrepancy was found between first and second opinion in 39.5% of the cases. Discrepant second opinions led to less extensive treatment in 28.1% and to more extensive treatment in 15.6%. Patients treated within the framework of the second-opinion project had an overall 2-year progression-free survival rate of 90.4%. Approximately every 6th second opinion led to a relevant change in therapy. Despite the lack of financial incentives, data from every 8th testicular cancer patient in Germany were submitted to second-opinion centers. Second-opinion centers can help to improve the implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results.

SEARCH STRATEGY

01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and metaanalyses of preeclampsia prevention with no restriction to period of publication or language. Metaanalyses were selected to fully identify relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reader appraised each selected article/registered protocol using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. For each article, he recorded whether both nulliparous and multiparous were included and, in case of mixed populations, whether randomisation was stratified, and whether subgroup analyses had been reported. For registered protocols, he only assessed whether it was planned to include mixed populations.

MAIN RESULTS

88 randomised controlled trials were identified, representing 83,396 included women. In 58 of the 88 articles identified (65.9%), preeclampsia was the primary outcome. In 31 of these (53.4%), the investigation combined nulliparous and multiparous women; only two reports in 31 (6.5%) stated that randomisation was stratified on parity and only four (12.9%) described a subgroup analysis by parity. Of the 30 registered trials, 20 (66.6%) planned to include both nulliparous and multiparous women.

CONCLUSION

Parity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.

Improved guideline adherence to pharmacotherapy of chronic systolic heart failure in general practice--results from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of implementation of a clinical practice guideline

RATIONALE AND AIMS

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) reflect the evidence of effective pharmacotherapy of chronic (systolic) heart failure (CHF) which needs to be implemented. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a new, multifaceted intervention (educational train-the-trainer course plus pharmacotherapy feedback = TTT) compared with standard education on guideline adherence (GA) in general practice.

METHOD

Thirty-seven participating general practitioners (GPs) were randomized (18 vs. 19) and included 168 patients with ascertained symptomatic CHF [New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-IV]. Groups received CPG, the TTT intervention consisted of four interactive educational meetings and a pharmacotherapy feedback, while the control group received a usual lecture (Standard). Outcome measure was GA assessed by prescription rates and target dosing of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers (BB) and aldosterone antagonists (AA) at baseline and 7-month follow-up. Group comparisons at follow-up were adjusted to GA, sex, age and NYHA stage at baseline.

RESULTS

Prescription rates at baseline (n = 168) were high (ACE-I/ARB 90, BB 79 and AA 29%) in both groups. At follow up (n = 146), TTT improved compared with Standard regarding AA (43% vs. 23%, P = 0.04) and the rates of reached target doses of ACE-I/ARB (28% vs. 15%, P = 0.04). TTT group achieved significantly higher mean percentages of daily target dose (52% vs. 42%, mean difference 10.3%, 95% CI 0.84-19.8, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite of pre-existing high GA in both groups and an active control group, the multifaceted intervention was effective in quality of care measured by GA. Further research is needed on the choice of interventions in different provider populations.