Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. Methods To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. Results In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. Conclusion A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Background Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted as part of routine care, which provides researchers and health systems multiple opportunities to study implementation processes and outcomes. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 32 ePCTs associated with the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory to assess the implementation-related outcomes that were measured or were planned to be measured, including reach (number and percent of eligible patients who participate in an intervention and the representativeness of those patients), patient engagement in or adherence to the intervention, adoption (number and percent of eligible organizations or clinicians that decide to take up or use an intervention), fidelity (clinician’s delivery of an intervention as intended), adaptations (changes or modifications to an intervention), sustainability (potential for an intervention to be maintained or institutionalized after a trial concludes), sustainment (actual maintenance or institutionalization of an intervention after a trial concludes), and costs. The trials represented different phases of progress (planned, ongoing, or completed). Results 91% of study teams completed the survey, and most (86%) reported measuring reach. The total number of teams measuring other outcomes was 76% for adherence, 45% for clinician adoption, 93% for fidelity, 69% for adaptations, 24% for sustainability, 38% for sustainment, and 31% for costs. Conclusion There is an opportunity for growth in measuring clinician adoption of the intervention, sustainability, sustainment, and associated costs. Measurement of these constructs in future ePCTs could result in development of improved implementation strategies to increase the likelihood of effective implementation leading to equitable, sustainable, and scalable improvement in practice.

Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients’ and clinicians’ rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement–related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.

With pragmatic clinical trials, an opportunity exists to answer important questions about the relative risks, burdens, and benefits of therapeutic interventions. However, concerns about protecting the privacy of this information are significant and must be balanced with the imperative to learn from the data gathered in routine clinical practice. Traditional privacy protections for research uses of identifiable information rely disproportionately on informed consent or authorizations, based on a presumption that this is necessary to fulfill ethical principles of respect for persons. But frequently, the ideal of informed consent is not realized in its implementation. Moreover, the principle of respect for persons—which encompasses their interests in health information privacy—can be honored through other mechanisms. Data anonymization also plays a role in protecting privacy but is not suitable for all research, particularly pragmatic clinical trials. In this article, we explore both the ethical foundation and regulatory framework intended to protect privacy in pragmatic clinical trials. We then review examples of novel approaches to respecting persons in research that may have the added benefit of honoring patient privacy considerations.

Pragmatic clinical trials are designed to inform decision makers about the benefits, burdens, and risks of health interventions in real-world settings. Pragmatic clinical trials often use for research purposes data collected in the course of clinical practice. The distinctive features of pragmatic clinical trials demand fresh thinking about what is required to act properly toward people affected by their conduct, in ways that go beyond ensuring the protection of rights and welfare for “human research subjects” under conventional research ethics regulations. To stimulate such work, we propose to distinguish among categories of research participants in pragmatic clinical trials as follows: Direct participants: (1) individuals being directly intervened upon and/or (2) individuals from whom personal identifiable data are being collected for the purposes of the pragmatic clinical trial. Indirect participants: individuals who are (1) not identified as direct participants and (2) whose rights and welfare may be affected by the intervention through their routine exposure to the environment in which the intervention is being deployed. Collateral participants: patient groups and other stakeholder communities who may be otherwise affected by the occurrence and findings of the pragmatic clinical trial. We illustrate these distinctions with case examples and discuss the distinctive responsibilities of researchers and pragmatic clinical trial leadership toward each type of participant. We suggest that pragmatic clinical trial investigators, institutional review boards, health systems leaders, and others engaged in the research enterprise work together to identify these participants. For indirect participants, risks and benefits to which they are exposed should be weighed to ensure that their rights and welfare are protected accordingly, and communication strategies should be considered to help them make well-informed decisions. Collateral participants could provide input on the design, planning, and conduct of a pragmatic clinical trial and offer insights regarding the best way to communicate the trial’s results to their constituencies.

Introduction Pragmatic clinical trials conducted in the context of routine care frequently satisfy the regulatory criteria for a waiver of research consent. When they do, investigators and Institutional Review Boards might assume that there is no reason to communicate any information regarding the study to participants. Yet, this approach ignores the possibility that there may be value in providing information to participants, even when the study does not pose significant risks and researchers are not obtaining their consent. Methods Members of the NIH Collaboratory Ethics and Regulatory Core working group used ethical analysis to determine whether there are reasons to provide information to research participants, other than notifying them of significant risks or obtaining their consent. Study team members then provided examples of trials which illustrate the feasibility and different options for providing information to participants in the context of trials conducted with a waiver of research consent. Results Communicating information to participants can promote one or more of six goals: respect for persons, participant understanding of the research, participant understanding of their contributions, participant ability to voice any concerns, participant engagement, and trust and trustworthiness. Providing information can also raise potential concerns about feasibility and cost, which need to be balanced against these reasons to inform participants. Depending on the study, a variety of methods can be used to communicate information; for example, letters, email, flyers, posters, as well as brief conversations with clinicians. Conclusion Even when researchers are not obtaining participants' consent, communicating information can promote one or more of six important goals. Providing information to participants should thus be the default for trials conducted under a waiver of research consent.

Bulk-soil and rhizosphere bacteria are thought to exert considerable influence over the types and concentrations of phytotoxins, including phenolic acids, that reach a root surface. Induction and/or selection of phenolic acid-utilizing (PAU) bacteria within the bulk-soil and rhizosphere have been observed when soils are enriched with individual phenolic acids at concentrations ≥0.25 μmol/g soil. However, since field soils frequently contain individual phenolic acids at concentrations well below 0.1 μmol/g soil, the actual importance of such induction and/or selection remains uncertain. Common bacteriological techniques (e.g., isolation on selective media, and plate dilution frequency technique) were used to demonstrate in Cecil A^sub p^ soil systems: (1) that PAU bacterial communities in the bulk soil and the rhizosphere of cucumber seedlings were induced and/or selected by mixtures composed of individual phenolic acids at concentrations well below 0.25 μmol/g soil; (2) that readily available carbon sources other than phenolic acids, such as glucose, did not modify induction and/or selection of PAU bacteria; (3) that the resulting bacterial communities readily utilize mixtures of phenolic acids as a carbon source; and (4) that depending on conditions (e.g., initial PAU bacterial populations, and phenolic acid concentration) there were significant inverse relationships between PAU bacteria in the rhizosphere of cucumber seedlings and absolute rates of leaf expansion and/or shoot biomass. The decline in seedling growth could not be attributed to resource competition (e.g., nitrogen) between the seedlings and the PAU bacteria in these studies. The induced and/or selected rhizosphere PAU bacteria, however, reduced the magnitude of growth inhibition by phenolic acid mixtures. For a 0.6 μmol/g soil equimolar phenolic acid mixture composed of p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, and vanillic acid, modeling indicated that an increase of 500% in rhizosphere PAU bacteria would lead to an approximate 5% decrease (e.g., 20-25%) in inhibition of absolute rates of leaf expansion. As far as we know, this is the first time that such a relationship has been quantified.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Abstract Background We previously conducted a concept elicitation study on the impact of Staphylococcus aureus and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (SAB/GNB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the patient’s perspective and found significant impacts on HRQoL, particularly in the physical and functional domains. Using this information and following guidance on the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, we determined which combination of measures and items (ie, specific questions) would be most appropriate in a survey assessing HRQoL in bloodstream infections. Methods We selected a variety of measures/items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) representing different domains. We purposefully sampled patients ~6–12 weeks post-SAB/GNB and conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews to refine the survey by exploring patients’ understanding of items and answer selection as well as relevance for capturing HRQoL. Results We interviewed 17 SAB/GNB patients. Based on the first round of cognitive interviews (n = 10), we revised the survey. After round 2 of cognitive interviewing (n = 7), we finalized the survey to include 10 different PROMIS short forms/measures of the most salient HRQoL domains and 2 adapted questions (41 items total) that were found to adequately capture HRQoL. Conclusions We developed a survey from well-established PRO measures that captures what matters most to SAB/GNB patients as they recover. This survey, uniquely tailored to bloodstream infections, can be used to assess these meaningful, important HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials and in patient care. Engaging patients is crucial to developing treatments for bloodstream infections.