scholarly journals The Pragmatic Turn in Clinical Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-24
Author(s):  
Olga Zvonareva

How does knowledge obtained in clinical trials apply to the actual treatment of patients? This question has recently acquired a new significance amidst complaints about the limited ability of trial results to improve clinical practice. Pragmatic clinical trials have been advocated to address this problem. In this article, I trace the emergence of the pragmatic turn in clinical research, starting from the first mention of ‘pragmatic trial’ in 1967, and analyse the changes to how pragmatism has been conceived. I argue that contemporary version of pragmatism risks missing the mark by focusing exclusively on establishing similarity between the trial and the clinic for the purpose of greater generalizability. This focus eclipses the move for carefully aligning medical experimentation with conditions, needs and concerns in the clinic aimed at greater usefulness. 

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18188-e18188
Author(s):  
Nupur Mittal ◽  
Anil George ◽  
Lizette Leanos ◽  
Paul Kent

e18188 Background: In 2016, President Obama announced the “Moonshot Cancer Initiative” to advance cancer research. One of the key components of this initiative is promoting enrollment in pragmatic clinical trials and data sharing. As described in 2009 by Thorpe et al, using the 9-domian PRECIS-2 tool, a ‘pragmatic’ trial, as opposed to an ‘explanatory’ trial used to confirm a physiologic hypothesis, is one in which the intervention can be immediately applied into real-world clinical practice (J of Clin Epi:2009). In the US, 60%-90% children are enrolled on COG research trials. State-of-the-art treatment for a child is derived from superior therapy identified in prior trials which then serves as the standard arm of subsequent phase-III trials and becomes the de facto practice guideline and ‘standard of care’ .To accomplish this goal, COG shares its data among the 242 member institutions.Our objective is to assess “pragmatism” in COG trials. Methods: We analyzed the 158 COG phase III clinical trials between 2006-2016 for all 9 domains of the PRECIS-2 (Table 1) and graded them from 1-5 (most explanatory to most pragmatic). Results: Out of 152 phase III clinical trials on the COG website, 138 (91%) scored 5/5 for all 9 PRECIS pragmatic domains and 148 (98%) scored >4. The scoring for all 9 domains is in table 1. Conclusions: COG provides nearly all children in the United States access to pragmatic phase III research as outlined in the Moonshot Goals. Goal of merging evidence-based standard care accessible to all and conducting well- designed clinical research to identify the best therapies has been accomplished by COG and should serve as an example to other cancer organizations. 9 domains of PRECIS-2 to assess pragmatism in clinical trials. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Ali ◽  
Margaret Antonelli ◽  
Lori Bastian ◽  
William Becker ◽  
Cynthia A Brandt ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, “real-world,” settings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Salem D. Al Suwaidan ◽  
Aseel S. Alsuwaidan

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Conducting clinical research in accordance with the standards of regulatory authorities and within the guidelines of the good clinical practice (GCP) is a matter of concern.  It has been noticed that some increment in the conduction of clinical trials outside USA and European countries in the last two decades. The main objective of this study is to identify the magnitude of some obstacles that affect the conduction of clinical trials in accordance with the GCP.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Developing questionnaire in accordance with the criteria of the GCP would make assessment on how to buildup infrastructure including policy and procedures of the research institution. Recommendation of the study is to perform this questionnaire every other year to assess the progress and development of the research institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> To identify good clinical researchers, what sort of obstacle(s) regarding conducting clinical trials, and from these obstacles how to resolve it and build up infrastructure for the research institution and also to establish the strategic plan for the research institution.</p>


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4026-4026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Rüdiger Hehlmann ◽  
Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽  
Stuart Goldberg ◽  
H. Jean Khoury ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Oral BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), including imatinib (IM), dasatinib (DAS) and nilotinib (NIL), have improved survival in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). Few data are available that compare TKIs in daily clinical practice across multiple regions. Methods SIMPLICITY is an ongoing observational cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML receiving first-line treatment with IM, DAS or NIL in the USA and Europe (Eu) outside of clinical trials (NCT01244750). The primary objective is to assess effectiveness of these TKIs in clinical practice. The study includes three ‘prospective’ cohorts of patients treated with IM, DAS or NIL since 2010 (the study opened after first-line approval of all three TKIs) and a ‘historical’ cohort treated with IM since 2008. Preliminary baseline demographics are presented for prospective cohorts. Results 860 prospective patients (Eu: 32%, USA: 68%) were enrolled through June 20, 2013, receiving IM (n=399), DAS (n=229) or NIL (n=232). Median age at initiation of first-line TKI was 56 years, with significant differences in pairwise comparisons between DAS and IM and NIL and IM (Table). Demographics were consistent across cohorts. Only 30% of patients had Hasford or Sokal scores recorded. ECOG performance status (PS) was available in 54% of patients. The number of baseline comorbidities per patient (mean: 3.2 + 2.7) was balanced across cohorts; 51% of patients presented with ≥3 comorbidities. Patients in the IM cohort had a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal comorbidities (P=.006 and .007 for DAS vs IM and NIL vs IM, respectively), and the NIL cohort had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal comorbidities than the DAS cohort (P=.015). The proportions of patients with cardiovascular comorbidities were 38%, 36% and 42% in the DAS, NIL and IM cohorts, respectively, consisting primarily of hypertension (31%) and hyperlipidemia (17%) (P>.05 across cohorts). Coronary artery disease was present in 9%, cardiac arrhythmias in 6%, myocardial infarction in 3% and peripheral arterial disease in 2% of patients. The proportion of patients with diabetes was 10%. Clinicians reported effectiveness as the most common reason for TKI selection; familiarity and cost were also cited as reasons for IM selection (P<.001 vs DAS and NIL). Comorbidities were not drivers of TKI selection in this analysis. Conclusions This is the first report from the prospective cohorts of SIMPLICITY. Demographics were consistent across cohorts. Overall, the SIMPLICITY population is older with potentially more comorbidities than patients enrolled in first-line clinical trials with restrictive inclusion criteria (NEJM 2003 348 994; NEJM 2010 362 2260; NEJM 2010 362 2251). Initial TKI selection does not appear to be driven by baseline comorbidity, rather by perceived effectiveness, cost and familiarity. Hasford/Sokal scores were not recorded in the majority of patients prior to starting first-line TKI therapy. Outcomes data are being collected across cohorts that will inform about a multi-region population treated outside clinical trials. Disclosures: Cortes: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hehlmann:Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldberg:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Khoury:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Mauro:Novartis Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Michallet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Paquette:Ariad: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy. Foreman:ICON Clinical Research: Employment, My employer ICON Clinical Research receives research funding from pharmaceutical companies including manufacturers of CML drugs Other. Mohamed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Zyczynski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Hirji:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Davis:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Carol Dillon ◽  
Patricio Pérez Leguizamon ◽  
Silvina Heisecke ◽  
Diego M. Castro ◽  
Jorge Lopez Camelo ◽  
...  

Background: The use of biomarkers in basic and clinical research as well as in clinical practice has become so common that their presence as primary endpoints in clinical trials is now accepted. A biomarker refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs. The aims of this article are to consider the of use biomarkers in Mild stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in research and clinical settings, in addition to defining their utility in clinical practice relating this with nutritional and lifestyle factors as possible treatment. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and AgeLine databases using different keywords.Conclusions: A summary of the utility of biomarkers in AD and nutritional and lifestyle factors used as treatment in mild stages are described.Key words: Biomarkers, Alzheimer’s disease, Dementia, Utility, Clinical practice, Nutritional


Author(s):  
Vesa Halimi ◽  
Armond Daci ◽  
Nevenka Ridova ◽  
Irina Panovska-Stavridis ◽  
Milena Stevanovic ◽  
...  

Abstract With a scientific background from filoviruses, paramyxoviruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, remdesivir entered into the COVID-19 battle to become one of the favorable therapeutic candidates with potential antiviral activity in the treatment of this disease. Globally, remdesivir was accessed and investigated through clinical research (clinical trials) and clinical practice (compassionate use, expanded access, early access scheme, and emergency use). Currently, remdesivir approval status differs between states. This paper aims to review and analyze regulatory approaches for accessing and investigating remdesivir, by communicating regulatory variability between countries in terms of terminology, modalities, and protocols.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S363-S363
Author(s):  
Abraham A Brody ◽  
Laura N Gitlin

Abstract Many clinical trials have been performed to develop the evidence for caring for persons with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders (ADRD) in tightly controlled settings. These trials have found efficacy of a wide spectrum of interventions to address issues from advanced care planning to behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). However, few ADRD interventions have been tested in wide-scale pragmatic fashion in long term supportive settings (LTSS) such as nursing homes, primary care clinics, hospices, or community based organizations. This is due to a variety factors, principle amongst them are the difficulty in implementing pragmatic trials, and that many of the interventions developed in tightly controlled settings are not directly translatable to real-world settings. Without translating and testing interventions in real world settings, the evidence base remains largely inaccessible to the end user, the persons with ADRD and their caregivers. Moreover, effectiveness remains unclear. The lack of pragmatic trials in ADRD exists despite significant recent investment from the NIH Office of the Director in a health systems collaboratory to support pragmatic clinical trials. In 2018, NIA therefore released a call for 2-phase intervention development and pragmatic trial testing via an R61-R33 mechanism (PAR-18-585). Four proposals were funded in September 2018 from this PAR. This symposium will explore the opportunities and challenges present in developing and testing pragmatic interventions in ADRD in LTSS. The speakers will also share specific scientific methodological and implementation questions that need to be addressed in applying for pragmatic trial awards.


Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory E. Simon ◽  
Susan M. Shortreed ◽  
Rebecca C. Rossom ◽  
Robert B. Penfold ◽  
Jo Ann M. Sperl-Hillen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background All clinical trial investigators have ethical and regulatory obligations to monitor participant safety and trial integrity. Specific procedures for meeting these obligations, however, may differ substantially between pragmatic trials and traditional explanatory clinical trials. Methods/Results Appropriate monitoring of clinical trials typically includes assessing rate of recruitment or enrollment; monitoring safe and effective delivery of study treatments; assuring that study staff act to minimize risks; monitoring quality and timeliness of study data; and considering interim analyses for early detection of benefit, harm, or futility. Each of these responsibilities applies to pragmatic clinical trials. Just as design of pragmatic trials typically involves specific and necessary departures from methods of explanatory clinical trials, appropriate monitoring of pragmatic trials typically requires specific departures from monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. We discuss how specific aspects of pragmatic trial design and operations influence selection of monitoring procedures and illustrate those choices using examples from three ongoing pragmatic trials conducted by the Mental Health Research Network. Conclusions Pragmatic trial investigators should not routinely adopt monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. Instead, investigators should consider core principles of trial monitoring and design monitoring procedures appropriate for each pragmatic trial.


2021 ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
Samir Malhotra

GCP has become the gold-standard for clinical research; initiated as a guideline pertaining to new drug development, it became a law in many countries, extending its scope to include all research. GCP is an excellent document that outlines the responsibilities of stakeholders involved in clinical research. Widely acclaimed, and deservedly so, it is considered as the “go-to” document whenever questions arise during the conduct of a clinical trial. This article presents another narrative, one that has not been articulated so far. Irrespective of whether we consider GCP as a law or a guideline, it is viewed as an “official” document, without the overt realisation that this was actually an initiative of the pharmaceutical industry, the “masters of mankind”. While the stress on documentation and monitoring in GCP was justified, its over-interpretation led to increased costs of clinical trials, with the result that smaller companies find it difficult to conduct the already expensive trials. GCP as an idea is now so entrenched within the scientific community that the real aims which led to its birth and that can be mined from the ICH website, like the need for market expansion, have remained largely unnoticed and undocumented, and are being expressed here.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-24
Author(s):  
Daria Jadreškić

The article presents the advantages and limitations of adaptive clinical trials for assessing the effectiveness of medical interventions and specifies the conditions that contributed to their development and implementation in clinical practice. I advance two arguments by discussing different cases of adaptive trials. The normative argument is that responsible adaptation should be taken seriously as a new way of doing clinical research insofar as a valid justification, sufficient understanding, and adequate operational conditions are provided. The second argument is historical. The development of adaptive trials can be related to lessons learned from research in cases of urgency and to the decades-long efforts to end the productivity crisis of pharmaceutical research, which led to the emergence of translational, personalized, and, recently, precision medicine movements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document