Explore the vast range of titles available.

Registry-based randomized controlled trials are defined as pragmatic trials that use registries as a platform for case records, data collection, randomization, and follow-up. Recently, the application of registry-based randomized controlled trials has attracted increasing attention in health research to address comparative effectiveness research questions in real-world settings, mainly due to their low cost, enhanced generalizability of findings, rapid consecutive enrollment, and the potential completeness of follow-up for the reference population, when compared with conventional randomized effectiveness trials. However several challenges of registry-based randomized controlled trials have to be taken into consideration, including registry data quality, ethical issues, and methodological challenges. In this article, we summarize the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research related to registry-based randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Depression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS) to implement depression QI on clients’ mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) and services use. DESIGN Matched programs from health, social and other service sectors were randomized to community engagement and planning (promoting inter-agency collaboration) or resources for services (individual program technical assistance plus outreach) to implement depression QI toolkits in Hollywood-Metro and South Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS From 93 randomized programs, 4,440 clients were screened and of 1,322 depressed by the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and providing contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 in 90 programs completed baseline or 6-month follow-up. MEASURES Self-reported mental HRQL and probable depression (primary), physical activity, employment, homelessness risk factors (secondary) and services use. RESULTS CEP was more effective than RS at improving mental HRQL, increasing physical activity and reducing homelessness risk factors, rate of behavioral health hospitalization and medication visits among specialty care users (i.e. psychiatrists, mental health providers) while increasing depression visits among users of primary care/public health for depression and users of faith-based and park programs (each p  < 0.05). Employment, use of antidepressants, and total contacts were not significantly affected (each p  > 0.05). CONCLUSION Community engagement to build a collaborative approach to implementing depression QI across diverse programs was more effective than resources for services for individual programs in improving mental HRQL, physical activity and homelessness risk factors, and shifted utilization away from hospitalizations and specialty medication visits toward primary care and other sectors, offering an expanded health-home model to address multiple disparities for depressed safety-net clients.

Abstract Introduction Preliminary trial data suggest group-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) might be effective for smoking cessation. If so, this could offer a viable alternative to mainstream behavioral therapies, such as those grounded in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The goal of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of group-delivered ACT versus group-delivered CBT in a rigorous randomized trial design with long-term follow-up. Methods Participants (n = 450) were recruited from the Kaiser Permanente Washington health care system and randomized to either ACT-based group counseling or an attention-matched CBT-based group program. All were prescribed an 8-week course of nicotine patches. The primary outcome was self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months post-randomization assessed with missing values imputed as smoking. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation and complete cases were examined, as were biochemically confirmed and 6-month outcomes. Results Thirty-day point prevalence abstinence rates at the 12-month follow-up did not differ between study arms in the primary analysis (13.8% ACT vs. 18.1% CBT, adjusted odds ratio = 0.68 [95% CI = 0.35 to 1.27], p = .23) or the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Group-based ACT and CBT had similar long-term quit rates in this methodologically rigorous randomized trial. Group-based ACT is a reasonable alternative to group-based CBT for smoking cessation. Implications This study compared the effectiveness of group-based ACT with group-based CBT for smoking cessation using a rigorous, large-scale, attention-matched, randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. One-year cessation rates did not differ between group-based ACT and CBT, suggesting ACT-based intervention is a reasonable alternative to CBT-based counseling for smoking cessation. The results add to the nascent but growing literature assessing ACT and other mindfulness-based treatments for smoking cessation.

Disparities in the control of hypertension and other cardiovascular disease risk factors are well-documented in the United States, even among patients seen regularly in the healthcare system. Few existing approaches explicitly address disparities in hypertension care and control. This paper describes the RICH LIFE Project (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) design. RICH LIFE is a two-arm, cluster-randomized trial, comparing the effectiveness of enhanced standard of care, “Standard of Care Plus” (SCP), to a multi-level intervention, “Collaborative Care/Stepped Care” (CC/SC), for improving blood pressure (BP) control and patient activation and reducing disparities in BP control among 1890 adults with uncontrolled hypertension and at least one other cardiovascular disease risk factor treated at 30 primary care practices in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Fifteen practices randomized to the SCP arm receive standardized BP measurement training; race/ethnicity-specific audit and feedback of BP control rates; and quarterly webinars in management practices, quality improvement and disparities reduction. Fifteen practices in the CC/SC arm receive the SCP interventions plus implementation of the collaborative care model with stepped-care components (community health worker referrals and virtual specialist-panel consults). The primary clinical outcome is BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) at 12 months. The primary patient-reported outcome is change from baseline in self-reported patient activation at 12 months. This study will provide knowledge about the feasibility of leveraging existing resources in routine primary care and potential benefits of adding supportive community-facing roles to improve hypertension care and reduce disparities. Clinicaltrials.govNCT02674464

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low among vulnerable populations. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are one screening modality with few barriers. Studies have shown that outreach can improve CRC screening, but little is known about its effectiveness among individuals with no CRC screening history. We sought to determine whether outreach increases FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history compared to usual care. METHODS This study was a patient-level randomized controlled trial, including 420 patients who had never completed CRC screening and were eligible for FIT; 66 % were female, 62.1 % were Latino, and 70.7 % were uninsured. The main outcome measure was FIT completion within 6 months of the randomization date. We assessed FIT completion at different time points corresponding to receipt of outreach components. All analyses were re-run with 12-month data. RESULTS Patients who received outreach were more likely to complete FIT than those in usual care (36.7 % vs. 14.8 %; p  < 0.001). FIT completion was more common among patients with increased clinic visits. The difference in FIT completion between the outreach and usual care groups decreased over time. DISCUSSION The intervention improved FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history. However, the intervention was less effective than in a previous trial targeting patients due for repeat screening. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for improving CRC screening among this hard-to-reach group.

We present a novel Bayesian adaptive comparative effectiveness trial comparing three treatments for status epilepticus that uses adaptive randomization with potential early stopping. The trial will enroll 720 unique patients in emergency departments and uses a Bayesian adaptive design. The trial design is compared to a trial without adaptive randomization and produces an efficient trial in which a higher proportion of patients are likely to be randomized to the most effective treatment arm while generally using fewer total patients and offers higher power than an analogous trial with fixed randomization when identifying a superior treatment. When one treatment is superior to the other two, the trial design provides better patient care, higher power, and a lower expected sample size.

Background Bayesian adaptive designs can be more efficient than traditional methods for multi-arm randomised controlled trials. The aim of this work was to demonstrate how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for multi-arm phase III clinical trials and assess potential benefits that these designs offer. Methods We constructed several alternative Bayesian adaptive designs for the Collaborative Ankle Support Trial (CAST), which was a randomised controlled trial that compared four treatments for severe ankle sprain. These designs incorporated response adaptive randomisation (RAR), arm dropping, and early stopping for efficacy or futility. We studied the operating characteristics of the Bayesian designs via simulation. We then virtually re-executed the trial by implementing the Bayesian adaptive designs using patient data sampled from the CAST study to demonstrate the practical applicability of the designs. Results We constructed five Bayesian adaptive designs, each of which had high power and recruited fewer patients on average than the original designs target sample size. The virtual executions showed that most of the Bayesian designs would have led to trials that declared superiority of one of the interventions over the control. Bayesian adaptive designs with RAR or arm dropping were more likely to allocate patients to better performing arms at each interim analysis. Similar estimates and conclusions were obtained from the Bayesian adaptive designs as from the original trial. Conclusions Using CAST as an example, this case study shows how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for phase III multi-arm trials using clinically relevant decision criteria. These designs demonstrated that they can potentially generate earlier results and allocate more patients to better performing arms. We recommend the wider use of Bayesian adaptive approaches in phase III clinical trials. Trial registration CAST study registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN37807450 . Retrospectively registered on 25 April 2003.

Background Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs). Methods This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs’ EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes. Results Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes. Conclusions Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics’ ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Background Classic and second-generation antipsychotic mood stabilizers are recommended for treatment of bipolar disorder, yet there are no randomized comparative effectiveness studies that have examined the ‘real-world’ advantages and disadvantages of these medications. Purpose We describe the strategic decisions in the design of the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE). This article outlines the key issues and solutions the investigators faced in designing a clinical trial that would maximize generalizability and inform real-world clinical treatment of bipolar disorder. Methods Bipolar CHOICE was a 6-month, multi-site, prospective, randomized clinical trial of outpatients with bipolar disorder. This study compares the effectiveness of quetiapine versus lithium, each with adjunctive personalized treatments (APTs). The co-primary outcomes selected are the overall benefits and harms of the study medications (as measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index) and the Necessary Clinical Adjustments (a measure of the number of medication changes). Secondary outcomes are continuous measures of mood, the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score, and the Longitudinal Interval Follow up Evaluation Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT). Results The final study design consisted of a single-blind, randomized comparative effectiveness trial of quetiapine versus lithium, plus APT, across 10 sites. Other important study considerations included limited exclusion criteria to maximize generalizability, flexible dosing of APT medications to mimic real-world treatment, and an intent-to-treat analysis plan. In all, 482 participants were randomized to the study, and 364 completed the study. Limitations The potential limitations of the study include the heterogeneity of APT, selection of study medications, lack of a placebo-control group, and participants’ ability to pay for study medications. Conclusion We expect that this study will inform our understanding of the benefits and harms of lithium, a classic mood stabilizer, compared to quetiapine, a second-generation antipsychotic with broad-spectrum activity in bipolar disorder, and will provide an example of a well-designed and well-conducted randomized comparative effectiveness clinical trial.

Background Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term. Methods Women with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N = 101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n = 50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n = 51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction. Results OPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p < .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p = .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p = .003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p < .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p = .001). Conclusions OPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.