Integrating shared decision making into trial consent: A nested, cluster-randomized trial

Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Pragmatic Clinical Research

Pragmatic clinical research is 1 of the 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024, a multidisciplinary effort by scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders to identify priorities for patient-centric research. This summary provides a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical research and actionable approaches to address them. This review is focused on identifying research that is needed to achieve the best outcomes for patients in clinical practice. Research gaps include understanding the needs of understudied patient groups and addressing barriers to care so all patients receive optimal care, validating and using biomarkers to enable early diagnosis and result in better outcomes for adults and children with IBD, and determining the optimal sequencing of treatments (medical, surgical, adjunct) in children and adults. Inclusive pragmatic research is needed to address these gaps and lead to improvements in patient care and outcomes for all populations of patients with IBD.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Preferences and experiences of pediatricians on implementing national guidelines on universal routine screening of adolescents for major depressive disorder: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

To explore the preferences of pediatricians for key factors around the implementation of universal routine screening guidelines for major depressive disorder in adolescent patients in a primary care setting.

METHOD

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with U.S. pediatricians. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Qualitive data were summarized using thematic analysis to identify themes relevant to preferences around implementing screening strategies for adolescent patients. Recruitment ended upon reaching thematic saturation when no new themes were revealed.

RESULTS

Of the 14 participants, 11 identified as female, 3 male, 10 white, and 4 Asian. Top themes among pediatrician participants were around the screening modality (14/14 participants), screening validity (14/14), time barriers (14/14), and confidentiality barriers (12/14). Less frequently mentioned themes by pediatricians were workplace coordination and logistics (7/14), alternative starting ages for screening (7/14), more frequent screenings than annual screenings (3/14), and additional clinical training regarding depression diagnosis and treatment (2/14).

LIMITATIONS

Pool of interviewed participants was limited by diversity in terms of geography, race/ethnicity, or practice settings.

CONCLUSIONS

To promote the uptake of universal routine screening of adolescent major depression, pediatricians expressed it was important to address key implementation factors regarding the screening modality, screening validity, time constraints, and confidential care concerns in a primary care delivery context. Findings could be used to inform the development of implementation strategies to facilitate depression screening in primary care. Future research is needed to quantitively assess decisions and tradeoffs that pediatricians make when implementing universal screening to support adolescent mental health.

Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-TNF in Combination With Low-Dose Methotrexate vs Anti-TNF Monotherapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected.

RESULTS

Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02772965.

Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials.

RESULTS

None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.