Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Promoting serious illness conversations in primary care through telehealth among persons living with cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND

serious illness conversations (SIC), particularly for persons living with cognitive impairment (PLCI), inconsistently happen in primary care. Pragmatic, scalable strategies are needed to promote SIC for PLCI.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, prospective single-arm pilot study that occurred between July 1, 2021 and May 30, 2022 across seven primary care practices in North Carolina.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling patients aged 65 and older with known or probable mild cognitive impairment or dementia (with decision-making capacity) and their care partners (if available).

INTERVENTION

SIC telehealth intervention (TeleVoice) via video or telephone to assist PLCI in discussing their current goals, values, and future medical preferences, while facilitating documentation within the EHR.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Main feasibility outcomes included reach/enrollment, intervention completion, and adoption rates at the clinic and provider level. Primary effectiveness outcomes included SIC documentation and quality within the EHR and usage of advance care planning billing (ACP) codes.

RESULTS

Of the 163 eligible PLCI approached, 107 (66%) enrolled (mean age 83.7 years, 68.2% female, 16.8% Black, 22% living in a geographic area of high socioeconomic disadvantage) and 81 (76%) completed the SIC telehealth intervention; 45 care partners agreed to participate (mean age 71.5 years, 80% female). Adoption at clinic level was 50%, while 75% of providers within these clinics participated. Among PLCI that completed the intervention, SIC documentation and usage of ACP billing codes was 100% and 96%, respectively, with 96% (n = 78) having high-quality SIC documentation. No significant differences were observed between telephone and video visits.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide preliminary evidence to support the feasibility of conducting SICs through telehealth to specifically meet the needs of community-dwelling PLCI. Further investigation of the sustainability of the intervention and its long-term impact on patient and caregiver outcomes is needed.

Assessing real-world implementability of a multimodal group-based tele-prehabilitation program in cancer care: a pragmatic feasibility study

Introduction

Multimodal prehabilitation is intended to optimize a patient's mental and physical health prior to surgery. Most multimodal prehabilitation interventions are delivered on a one-on-one format, which may limit benefits associated with social interactions that can be achieved in a group context, and are delivered in-person, which may limit the accessibility. The purpose of this study was to develop a group-based, multimodal, tele-prehabilitation intervention for individuals diagnosed with cancer (iACTIF) and assess its implementability in a "real-world" clinical setting by measuring feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and preliminary effects.

Methods

A prospective, single-group, pragmatic feasibility study was conducted with assessments at baseline, pre-surgery, and 12-weeks post-surgery. iACTIF consisted of three 90-min live videoconference sessions per week, including exercise and educational components. Descriptive statistics were used to document feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity indicators. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Cohen's D-test were conducted to assess changes in health-related outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 participants (mean age ± SD= 60.2 ± 14.0) were recruited. The feasibility assessment revealed a low referral rate (31.4%) and a high study retention (98%) and program attendance [session attended/possible session] (70.2%), with a prehabilitation window of 32.7 days (SD= 20.9, median= 28). Acceptability was high (84%-100%) according to satisfaction, utility and safety, delivery modality, and intention to continue physical activity and to recommend iACTIF to a relative. Pre-post-intervention assessments suggest positive changes on physical functional capacity based on the 2-min step test (mean difference= +18.9 steps, p=0.005), the 30-s sit-to-stand (mean difference= +1.1 repetition, p=0.011), and volume of moderate intensity physical activity per week (mean difference= +104.8 min, p<0.001). Fidelity was supported by conformity and coherence, with only minimal adjustments required to meet participants' needs.

Discussion

iACTIF implementability in a "real-world" clinical setting is promising, and preliminary outcomes suggest moderate benefits on physical health and small increase in mental health indicators.

Preliminary Evidence for Dementia Collaborative Coaching

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this study was to obtain preliminary evidence for a communication coaching intervention, Dementia Collaborative Coaching. The secondary aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention according to routine care providers.

METHOD

In a pre-/posttest design, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) delivered Dementia Collaborative Coaching to certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and people living with dementia (PLWD) in six different skilled nursing facilities over a period of 6 weeks. A self-perceived knowledge and efficacy measure regarding the use of external memory aids to support communication in PLWD was administered to CNA and SLP participants. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory was administered to PLWD participants. The Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were administered post-intervention.

RESULTS

For CNAs, self-perceived knowledge and efficacy increased from pre-intervention (M = 3.73, SD = 0.69) to post-intervention (M = 4.07, SD = 0.44), t(11) = -1.97, one-sided p = .037. There was a significant improvement (e.g., reduction) in scores on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory for PLWD (n = 10) from pre-intervention (M = 73.10, SD = 29.98) to post-intervention (M = 58.6, SD = 18.82), t(9) = 2.83, p = .01. CNA participants (n = 12) rated the intervention as acceptable (M = 4.48, SD = 0.48), appropriate (M = 4.33, SD = 0.61), and feasible (M = 4.19, SD = 0.48). SLPs rated the intervention as slightly more acceptable, appropriate, and feasible than CNAs with scores of M = 4.54, SD = 0.51; M = 4.54, SD = 0.51; and M = 4.46, SD = 0.51, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dementia Collaborative Coaching showed preliminary positive outcomes for CNAs and PLWD. The intervention was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for routine providers and warrants further study.

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05346588.

Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) focus on correlation between treatment and outcomes in real-world clinical practice, yet a guide highlighting key study considerations and design types for emergency medicine investigators pursuing this important study type is not available. Investigators conducting emergency department (ED)-based PCTs face multiple decisions within the planning phase to ensure robust and meaningful study findings. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool allows trialists to consider both pragmatic and explanatory components across nine domains, shaping the trial design to the purpose intended by the investigators. Aside from the PRECIS-2 tool domains, ED-based investigators conducting PCTs should also consider randomization techniques, human subjects concerns, and integration of trial components within the electronic health record. The authors additionally highlight the advantages, disadvantages, and rationale for the use of four common randomized study design types to be considered in PCTs: parallel, crossover, factorial, and stepped-wedge. With increasing emphasis on the conduct of PCTs, emergency medicine investigators will benefit from a rigorous approach to clinical trial design.