Generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic randomized controlled trials

Bridging research gaps in geriatric oncology: unraveling the potential of pragmatic clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the role of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) in addressing the underrepresentation of older adults with cancer (OAC) in clinical trials. Focusing on real-world evidence (RWE), it aims to provide a comprehensive overview of PCT utilization, emphasizing their potential to enhance treatment decisions and patient outcomes. Existing knowledge gaps in PCT implementation are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

PCTs are identified as effective tools to include OACs with comorbidities and complex conditions in research, bridging the representation gap. Despite their proven value in healthcare provision, their application in OAC contexts remains limited, hindering comprehensive understanding and inclusivity in clinical trials.

SUMMARY

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in oncology research, OACs have historically been excluded, perpetuating underrepresentation. Furthermore, even in current oncology clinical development trials, this demographic continues to be underrepresented. PCTs offer a valuable avenue for the identification and evaluation of therapies within authentic RW contexts, encompassing various healthcare settings, such as hospitals, clinics, and physician practices. RCTs and PCTs complement one another, and the utilization of PCTs has the potential to inform clinical decision-making across the OACs entire treatment trajectory.

Digital Health Applications for Pharmacogenetic Clinical Trials

Digital health (DH) is the use of digital technologies and data analytics to understand health-related behaviors and enhance personalized clinical care. DH is increasingly being used in clinical trials, and an important field that could potentially benefit from incorporating DH into trial design is pharmacogenetics. Prospective pharmacogenetic trials typically compare a standard care arm to a pharmacogenetic-guided therapeutic arm. These trials often require large sample sizes, are challenging to recruit into, lack patient diversity, and can have complicated workflows to deliver therapeutic interventions to both investigators and patients. Importantly, the use of DH technologies could mitigate these challenges and improve pharmacogenetic trial design and operation. Some DH use cases include (1) automatic electronic health record-based patient screening and recruitment; (2) interactive websites for participant engagement; (3) home- and tele-health visits for patient convenience (e.g., samples for lab tests, physical exams, medication administration); (4) healthcare apps to collect patient-reported outcomes, adverse events and concomitant medications, and to deliver therapeutic information to patients; and (5) wearable devices to collect vital signs, electrocardiograms, sleep quality, and other discrete clinical variables. Given that pharmacogenetic trials are inherently challenging to conduct, future pharmacogenetic utility studies should consider implementing DH technologies and trial methodologies into their design and operation.

Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication

Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision‐making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers’ decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza‐specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.

Comparative effectiveness trial of transoral head and neck surgery followed by adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy versus primary radiochemotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer (TopROC)

BACKGROUND

For loco-regionally advanced, but transorally resectable oropharyngeal cancer (OPSCC), the current standard of care includes surgical resection and risk-adapted adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy, or definite chemoradiation with or without salvage surgery. While transoral surgery for OPSCC has increased over the last decade for example in the United States due to transoral robotic surgery, this treatment approach has a long history in Germany. In contrast to Anglo-Saxon countries, transoral surgical approaches have been used frequently in Germany to treat patients with oro-, hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) has had a long tradition since its introduction in the early 70s. To date, the different therapeutic approaches to transorally resectable OPSCC have not been directly compared to each other in a randomized trial concerning disease control and survival. The goal of this study is to compare initial transoral surgery to definitive chemoradiation for resectable OPSCC, especially with regards to local and regional control.

METHODS

TopROC is a prospective, two-arm, open label, multicenter, randomized, and controlled comparative effectiveness study. Eligible patients are ≥18 years old with treatment-naïve, histologically proven OPSCC (T1, N2a-c, M0; T2, N1-2c, M0; T3, N0-2c, M0 UICC vers. 7) which are amenable to transoral resection. Two hundred eighty patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical treatment (arm A) or chemoradiation (arm B). Standard of care treatment will be performed according to daily routine practice. Arm A consists of transoral surgical resection with neck dissection followed by risk-adapted adjuvant therapy. Patients treated in arm B receive standard chemoradiation, residual tumor may be subject to salvage surgery. Follow-up visits for 3 years are planned. Primary endpoint is time to local or locoregional failure (LRF). Secondary endpoints include overall and disease free survival, toxicity, and patient reported outcomes. Approximately 20 centers will be involved in Germany. This trial is supported by the German Cancer Aid and accompanied by a scientific support program.

DISCUSSION

This study will shed light on an urgently-needed randomized comparison of the strategy of primary chemoradiation vs. primary surgical approach. As a comparative effectiveness trial, it is designed to provide data based on two established regimens in daily clinical routine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03691441 Registered 1 October 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Gamification for Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

During past years, gamification has become a major trend in technology, and promising results of its effectiveness have been reported. However, prior research has predominantly focused on examining the effects of gamification among young adults, while other demographic groups such as older adults have received less attention. In this review, we synthesize existing scholarly work on the impact of gamification for older adults.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using 4 academic databases from inception through January 2019. A rigorous selection process was followed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Twelve empirical peer-reviewed studies written in English, focusing on older adults aged ≥55, including a gameful intervention, and assessing subjective or objective outcomes were identified. Eleven of the 12 studies were conducted in the health domain. Randomized controlled study settings were reported in 8 studies. Positively oriented results were reported in 10 of 12 studies on visual attention rehabilitation, diabetes control, increasing positive emotions for patients with subthreshold depression, cognitive training and memory tests, engagement in training program, perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation and positive emotions of social gameplay conditions, increased physical activity and balancing ability, and increased learning performance and autonomy experiences. The results are, however, mostly weak indications of positive effects.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the studies on gameful interventions for older adults suggest that senior users may benefit from gamification and game-based interventions, especially in the health domain. However, due to methodological shortcomings and limited amount of research available, further work in the area is called for.

Acupuncture therapy for chronic low back pain: protocol of a prospective, multi-center, registry study

Objective

Acupuncture therapy for chronic low back pain (CLBP) has received increasing attention. Nevertheless, the evidence of efficacy and safety of random controlled trials (RCTs) remains controversial. Acupuncture as a complex intervention influenced by many factors, its effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in the real world is unknown. We will develop a network-based registry study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain and explore key factors affecting efficacy in the real world.

Methods

A prospective, multi-center and dynamic registry study. All acupuncture related information will be collected through a high-quality structured network platform. Patients with CLBP included in the study met the following criteria: age from 16 to 80 years, using acupuncture as a main therapy and voluntarily signing the informed consent. At least 2000 patients, 27 acupuncturist, and 9 medical centers will be recruited under actual clinical settings at the first stage. Numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Effective rate will be measured in pain and functional disability assessment, respectively, as the primary outcome. Evaluation index will be collected at the baseline and follow-up in 1, 4, 12 weeks after the last visit. Hierarchical models and regression analysis will be used to explore the key factors affecting acupuncture effectiveness. Effects between propensity matching groups (Traditional Chinese acupuncture style vs Microacupuncture style, Local acupoint selection vs Non-local acupoint selection, Single Acupuncture vs Combined therapy) will be compared.

Discussion

This study will be conducted based on the characteristics of acupuncture therapy in the “Real World”. Fundamental factors affecting the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and the preferred acupuncture regimen in the treatment of CLBP will be identified. Reliable acupuncture evidence for the treatment of CLBP through the registry will be a significant supplement to the RCTs.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-OOC-17010751 and Acupuncture-Moxibustion Clinical Trial Registry, AMCTR-OOO-17000045. Registered date on 3 December 2016.

Inconsistency prevents the valuable synergism of explanatory and pragmatic trails

OBJECTIVE

To assess review articles on pragmatic trials in order to describe how authors define the aim of this type of study, how comprehensive methodological topics are covered, and which topics are most valued by authors.

METHODS

Review articles were selected from Medline Database, based on the expression "pragmatic trial" in the titles. Five trained medical students evaluated the articles, based on a list of 15 self-explanatory methodological topics. Each article was evaluated regarding topics covered. Baseline statements on the aim of pragmatic trials were derived.

RESULTS

Among 22 articles identified, there was general agreement that the aim of a pragmatic trial is to evaluate if the intervention works under real-world conditions. The mean number of methodological topics addressed by each article was 7.6 ± 3.1. Only one article covered all 15 topics, three articles (14%) responded to at least 75% of topics and 13 articles (59%) mentioned at least 50% of the topics. The relative frequency each of the 15 topics was cited by articles had a mean of 50% ± 25%. No topic was addressed by all articles, only three (20%) were addressed by more than 75% of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

There is agreement on the different aims of explanatory and pragmatic trials. But there is a large variation on methodological topics used to define a pragmatic trial, which led to inconsistency in defining the typical methodology of a pragmatic trial.

Computed tomography versus invasive coronary angiography: design and methods of the pragmatic randomised multicentre DISCHARGE trial

OBJECTIVES

More than 3.5 million invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) are performed in Europe annually. Approximately 2 million of these invasive procedures might be reduced by noninvasive tests because no coronary intervention is performed. Computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate noninvasive test for detection and exclusion of coronary artery disease (CAD). To investigate the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA, we designed the European pragmatic multicentre DISCHARGE trial funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (EC-GA 603266).

METHODS

In this trial, patients with a low-to-intermediate pretest probability (10-60 %) of suspected CAD and a clinical indication for ICA because of stable chest pain will be randomised in a 1-to-1 ratio to CT or ICA. CT and ICA findings guide subsequent management decisions by the local heart teams according to current evidence and European guidelines.

RESULTS

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke as a composite endpoint will be the primary outcome measure. Secondary and other outcomes include cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), socioeconomic status, lifestyle, adverse events related to CT/ICA, and gender differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The DISCHARGE trial will assess the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA.

KEY POINTS

• Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. • Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the reference standard for detection of CAD. • Noninvasive computed tomography angiography excludes CAD with high sensitivity. • CT may effectively reduce the approximately 2 million negative ICAs in Europe. • DISCHARGE addresses this hypothesis in patients with low-to-intermediate pretest probability for CAD.

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.

Optimizing the design of pragmatic trials: key issues remain

Clinical trials have largely focused on whether an intervention can work. To ensure valid and powerful testing of this hypothesis, trials attempt to maximize the effect of the intervention of interest, controlling other factors that can confound comparisons. The benefits observed in these studies are often not sustained once the treatment is used in routine care, leaving regulators, practitioners and patients with a paucity of reliable evidence to assist decision-making. Attempts to address this need have led to 'pragmatic trials' that prioritize applicability of findings to real-world practice by minimizing design features that produce less pertinent information. Minimizing biases in this pragmatic context remains a very difficult task, however. This paper reviews some of these challenges and highlights specific aspects of design that must be approached with a pragmatic attitude.

Building an Evidence-Base for TCM and Integrative East-West Medicine: A Review of Recent Developments in Innovative Research Design

There are many challenges to developing an evidence base for Traditional Chinese Medicine and Integrative East-West Medicine. This article offers a review of these challenges alongside an introduction and review of several innovations in healthcare research that have successfully been applied to the study of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Integrative Medicine. Such innovations include developments in Whole Systems Research, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Health Services Research, and qualitative Social Sciences Research. Each of these approaches expands upon conventional approaches to clinical research and can also be combined with clinical trial data to yield a mixed-methods approach. We conclude with a commentary on the necessity for such mixed methods studies in the continued establishment of an evidence base for TCM and IM.

Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: a pharmaceutical industry perspective

We briefly review the characteristics of several established health technology assessment (HTA) programs in industrialized societies including Germany, the UK and France. Special attention is paid on two issues: the position of HTA in coverage decision making and the role of economic assessment in evaluation processes. Although law makers in the USA have barred the use of NICE's cost/quality-adjusted life year or similar health economics approaches by public payers for coverage decision making, there are suggestions of prioritizing relative efficacy evaluation over economic assessment under a comparative effectiveness research (CER) framework to inform payment rates of public payers (an approach similar to German and French HTA processes). However, such an approach is unlikely to prove viable. It should also be noted that, if cost considerations are made explicit in US CER policy decisions, CER may become an unsustainable approach undermined by a conflicting emphasis on both cost containment and a demand for costly comparative evidence. On the other hand, properly designed CER initiatives can serve as a facilitator of more efficient research activities and drug development models. With these points in mind, the likely pathway of US CER is explored and the plausible impact on industry innovation is discussed.

Physician Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research: Implications for Practice-based Evidence

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is defined by the Institute of Medicine as “the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care.” The goal of CER is to provide timely, useful evidence to healthcare decision makers including physicians, patients, policymakers, and payers. A prime focus for the use of CER evidence is the interaction between physician and patient. Physicians in primary practice are critical to the success of the CER enterprise. A 2009 survey suggests, however, that physician attitudes toward CER may be mixed—somewhat positive toward the potential for patient care improvement, yet negative toward potential restriction on physician freedom of practice. CER methods and goals closely parallel those of practice-based research, an important movement in family medicine in the United States since the 1970s. This article addresses apparent physician ambivalence toward CER and makes a case for family medicine engagement in CER to produce useful practice-based evidence. Such an effort has potential to expand care options through personalized medicine, individualized guidelines, focus on patient preferences and patient-reported outcomes, and study of complex therapeutic interventions, such as integrative care. Academic medical researchers will need to collaborate with experienced family physicians to identify significant practice-based research questions and design meaningful studies. Such collaborations would shape CER to produce high-quality practice-based evidence to inform family and community medicine.

Review of the registration of clinical trials in UMIN-CTR from 2 June 2005 to 1 June 2010 - focus on Japan domestic, academic clinical trials

Background

Established on 1 June 2005, the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) is the largest clinical trial registry in Japan, and joined the World Health Organization (WHO) registry network in October 2008. Our aim was to understand the registration trend and overall characteristics of Japan domestic, academic (non-industry-funded) clinical trials, which constitute the main body of registrations in UMIN-CTR. In addition, we aimed to investigate the accessibility of clinical trials in UMIN-CTR to people worldwide, as well as the accessibility of clinical trials conducted in Japan but registered abroad to Japanese people in the Japanese language.

Methods

We obtained the data for registrations in UMIN-CTR from the UMIN Center, and extracted Japan domestic, academic clinical trials to analyze their registration trend and overall characteristics. We also investigated how many of the trials registered in UMIN-CTR could be accessed from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Finally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all clinical trials conducted in Japan and investigated how many of them were also registered in Japanese registries. All of the above analyses included clinical trials registered from 2 June 2005 to 1 June 2010.

Results

During the period examined, the registration trend showed an obvious peak around September 2005 and rapid growth from April 2009. Of the registered trials, 46.4% adopted a single-arm design, 34.5% used an active control, only 10.9% were disclosed before trial commencement, and 90.0% did not publish any results. Overall, 3,063 of 3,064 clinical trials registered in UMIN-CTR could be accessed from ICTRP. Only 8.7% of all clinical trials conducted in Japan and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were also registered in Japanese registries.

Conclusions

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announcements about clinical trial registration and the Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Research published by the Japanese government are considered to have promoted clinical trial registration in UMIN-CTR. However, problems associated with trial design, retrospective registration, and publication of trial results need to be addressed in future. Almost all clinical trials registered in UMIN-CTR are accessible to people worldwide through ICTRP. However, many trials conducted in Japan but registered abroad cannot be accessed from Japanese registries in Japanese.

Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider

Several cost-effectiveness models of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been developed for different populations and different countries. Vast differences in the approaches and discrepancies in the results give rise to heated discussions and limit the use of these models. Our main objective is to discuss the methodological challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for MS. We conducted a review of published models to describe the approaches taken to date, to identify the key parameters that influence the cost effectiveness of DMTs, and to point out major areas of weakness and uncertainty. Thirty-six published models and analyses were identified. The greatest source of uncertainty is the absence of head-to-head randomized clinical trials. Modellers have used various techniques to compensate, including utilizing extension trials. The use of large observational cohorts in recent studies aids in identifying population-based, 'real-world' treatment effects. Major drivers of results include the time horizon modelled and DMT acquisition costs. Model endpoints must target either policy makers (using cost-utility analysis) or clinicians (conducting cost-effectiveness analyses). Lastly, the cost effectiveness of DMTs outside North America and Europe is currently unknown, with the lack of country-specific data as the major limiting factor. We suggest that limited data should not preclude analyses, as models may be built and updated in the future as data become available. Disclosure of modelling methods and assumptions could improve the transferability and applicability of models designed to reflect different healthcare systems.

Engaging hard-to-reach patients in patient-centered outcomes research

Aims: This study aimed to identify methods to engage hard-to-reach patients in the research process. Materials & methods: With funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Washington, DC, USA), the University of Maryland (MD, USA) conducted 20 focus groups and one individual interview. The sample consisted of six groups of hard-to-reach patients, two groups of healthcare providers who work with hard-to-reach patients and two groups of surrogates of hard-to-reach patients. Results & conclusion: In order to make patient-centered outcomes research more meaningful to patients and their caregivers, patient-centered outcomes research should be conducted with a focus on building and maintaining trust, which is achieved via pre-engagement with communities and continuous engagement of study participants and their communities.

Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease

This article reviews methods for comparative effectiveness research using observational data. The basic idea is using an observational study to emulate a hypothetical randomised trial by comparing initiators versus non-initiators of treatment. After adjustment for measured baseline confounders, one can then conduct the observational analogue of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also explain two approaches to conduct the analogues of per-protocol and as-treated analyses after further adjusting for measured time-varying confounding and selection bias using inverse-probability weighting. As an example, we implemented these methods to estimate the effect of statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) using data from electronic medical records in the UK. Despite strong confounding by indication, our approach detected a potential benefit of statin therapy. The analogue of the intention-to-treat hazard ratio (HR) of CHD was 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) for statin initiators versus non-initiators. The HR of CHD was 0.84 (0.54, 1.30) in the per-protocol analysis and 0.79 (0.41, 1.41) in the as-treated analysis for 2 years of use versus no use. In contrast, a conventional comparison of current users versus never users of statin therapy resulted in a HR of 1.31 (1.04, 1.66). We provide a flexible and annotated SAS program to implement the proposed analyses.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Purpose

To assess the relevance of the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom to the comparative effectiveness research (CER) initiative in the United States.

Methods

The activities of NICE were reviewed to assess its experience in analytic methods, engagement with stakeholders, communication of findings, and implementation of recommendations.

Results

The main lessons for the United States from the experience of NICE relate to how the institute has gathered, synthesized, and used information on the clinical and cost effectiveness of health care interventions. The experience of NICE suggests that ways will have to be found to reconcile the differing stakeholder perspectives on the value of health care. Given the emphasis in the United States on being patient centered, there will be situations where patients' expectations for the provision of care far exceed that which payers feel should be made available on grounds of value for money. Explicit restrictions on access to care based on CER like those found in the United Kingdom are unlikely, but alternative solutions, such as value-based reimbursement, will need to be pursued if unnecessary expenditures are to be avoided. It will also be important that the CER initiative show some impact on the use of health care resources. The longer that NICE has been in existence in the United Kingdom, questions about its impact have been more frequently asked, given the resources devoted to its activities.

Conclusion

Although there are distinct differences between the health systems of the United Kingdom and United States, lessons can be learned from examining the successes and challenges experienced by NICE.

Comparative effectiveness and child health

Comparative effectiveness research is expected to play an important role in future clinical and policy decision making in the US; however, the application of comparative effectiveness methodologies to child health requires special attention to aspects of health and healthcare that are specific to children. These special considerations include the role of parent/caregiver as joint decision maker and co-participant in many types of interventions, how the effectiveness of an intervention varies by age and developmental stage, and the difficulties in translating short-term data from childhood into projected effectiveness over the lifespan. Each aspect of comparative effectiveness, such as conducting new studies, synthesizing existing evidence, emphasizing real-world settings, considering multiple decision makers, and measuring patient-relevant outcomes, will require expanded definitions when considered in the context of child health. This paper discusses how comparative effectiveness methods and concepts will differ when applied to child health and suggests a potential role for decision analysis as a method to synthesize data and project long-term outcomes. The initiation of comparative effectiveness studies for children represents an exciting opportunity to provide evidence that can guide clinical and policy decisions for child health.

How pragmatic or explanatory is the randomized, controlled trial? The application and enhancement of the PRECIS tool to the evaluation of a smoking cessation trial

BACKGROUND

Numerous explanatory randomized trials support the efficacy of chronic disease interventions, including smoking cessation treatments. However, there is often inadequate adoption of these interventions for various reasons, one being the limitation of generalizability of the explanatory studies in real-world settings. Randomized controlled trials can be rated as more explanatory versus pragmatic along 10 dimensions. Pragmatic randomized clinical trials generate more realistic estimates of effectiveness with greater relevance to clinical practice and for health resource allocation decisions. However, there is no clear method to scale each dimension during the trial design phase to ensure that the design matches the intended purpose of the study.

METHODS

We designed a pragmatic, randomized, controlled study to maximize external validity by addressing several barriers to smoking cessation therapy in ambulatory care. We analyzed our design and methods using the recently published 'Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicatory Summary (PRECIS)' tool, a qualitative method to assess trial design across 10 domains. We added a 20-point numerical rating scale and a modified Delphi process to improve consensus in rating these domains.

RESULTS

After two rounds of review, there was consensus on all 10 domains of study design. No single domain was scored as either fully pragmatic or fully explanatory; but overall, the study scored high on pragmatism.

CONCLUSIONS

This addition to the PRECIS tool may assist other trial designers working with interdisciplinary co-investigators to rate their study design while building consensus.

Biosignatures: comparative effectiveness research in biomarker clinical studies

Due to increased healthcare expenditure and the need for evidence-supported clinical decision-making, clinical evaluation using comparative effectiveness research (CER) was initially proposed in the US. CER consists of generating and synthesizing evidence in relative benefits, harms, and costs of different alternatives through direct head-to-head comparisons. CER studies can help identify the most effective interventions for patients under specific circumstances, and therefore improve the efficiency of the healthcare system. A Biosignatures project newly launched in Taiwan was inspired by CER, aiming at using discovered biomarkers panel as tools in early detection of disease and prediction of treatment effectiveness.

Exploratory trials, confirmatory observations: a new reasoning model in the era of patient-centered medicine

Background

The prevailing view in therapeutic clinical research today is that observational studies are useful for generating new hypotheses and that controlled experiments (i.e., randomized clinical trials, RCTs) are the most appropriate method for assessing and confirming the efficacy of interventions.

Discussion

The current trend towards patient-centered medicine calls for alternative ways of reasoning, and in particular for a shift towards hypothetico-deductive logic, in which theory is adjusted in light of individual facts. A new model of this kind should change our approach to drug research and development, and regulation. The assessment of new therapeutic agents would be viewed as a continuous process, and regulatory approval would no longer be regarded as the final step in the testing of a hypothesis, but rather, as the hypothesis-generating step.

The main role of RCTs in this patient-centered research paradigm would be to generate hypotheses, while observations would serve primarily to test their validity for different types of patients. Under hypothetico-deductive logic, RCTs are considered "exploratory" and observations, "confirmatory".

Summary

In this era of tailored therapeutics, the answers to therapeutic questions cannot come exclusively from methods that rely on data aggregation, the analysis of similarities, controlled experiments, and a search for the best outcome for the average patient; they must also come from methods based on data disaggregation, analysis of subgroups and individuals, an integration of research and clinical practice, systematic observations, and a search for the best outcome for the individual patient. We must look not only to evidence-based medicine, but also to medicine-based evidence, in seeking the knowledge that we need.