Challenges in assessing population reach in a pragmatic trial

Comparing Pharmacist-Led Telehealth Care and Clinic-Based Care for Uncontrolled High Blood Pressure: The Hyperlink 3 Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

A team approach is one of the most effective ways to lower blood pressure (BP) in uncontrolled hypertension, but different models for organizing team-based care have not been compared directly.

METHODS

A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial compared 2 interventions in adult patients with moderately severe hypertension (BP≥150/95 mm Hg): (1) clinic-based care using best practices and face-to-face visits with physicians and medical assistants; and (2) telehealth care using best practices and adding home BP telemonitoring with home-based care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in patient-reported outcomes over 6 months.

RESULTS

Participants (N=3071 in 21 primary care clinics) were on average 60 years old, 47% male, and 19% Black. Protocol-specified follow-up within 6 weeks was 32% in clinic-based care and 27% in telehealth care. BP decreased significantly during 12 months of follow-up in both groups, from 157/92 to 139/82 mm Hg in clinic-based care patients (adjusted mean difference -18/-10 mm Hg) and 157/91 to 139/81 mm Hg in telehealth care patients (adjusted mean difference -19/-10 mm Hg), with no significant difference in systolic BP change between groups (-0.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.84 to 1.32]). Telehealth care patients were significantly more likely than clinic-based care patients to report frequent home BP measurement, rate their BP care highly, and report that BP care visits were convenient.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth care that includes extended team care is an effective and safe alternative to clinic-based care for improving patient-centered care for hypertension.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02996565.

Comparison of explanatory and pragmatic design choices in a cluster-randomized hypertension trial: effects on enrollment, participant characteristics, and adherence

Background

Explanatory trials are designed to assess intervention efficacy under ideal conditions, while pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether research-proven interventions are effective in “real-world” settings without substantial research support.

Methods

We compared two trials (Hyperlink 1 and 3) that tested a pharmacist-led telehealth intervention in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. We applied PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) scores to describe differences in the way these studies were designed and enrolled study-eligible participants, and the effect of these differences on participant characteristics and adherence to study interventions.

Results

PRECIS-2 scores demonstrated that Hyperlink 1 was more explanatory and Hyperlink 3 more pragmatic. Recruitment for Hyperlink 1 was conducted by study staff, and 2.9% of potentially eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were older, and more likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff scheduled the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was 98%. Conversely for Hyperlink 3, recruitment was conducted by clinic staff at routine encounters and 81% of eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were younger, and less likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff did not assist with scheduling the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was only 27%. Compared to Hyperlink 1, patients in Hyperlink 3 were more likely to be female, and Asian or Black, had lower socioeconomic indicators, and were more likely to have comorbidities. Owing to a lower BP for eligibility in Hyperlink 1 (>140/90 mm Hg) than in Hyperlink 3 (>150/95 mm Hg), mean baseline BP was 148/85 mm Hg in Hyperlink 1 and 158/92 mm Hg in Hyperlink 3.

Conclusion

The pragmatic design features of Hyperlink 3 substantially increased enrollment of study-eligible patients and of those traditionally under-represented in clinical trials (women, minorities, and patients with less education and lower income), and demonstrated that identification and enrollment of a high proportion of study-eligible subjects could be done by usual primary care clinic staff. However, the trade-off was much lower adherence to the telehealth intervention than in Hyperlink 1, which is likely to reflect uptake under real-word conditions and substantially dilute intervention effect on BP.

Trial registration

The Hyperlink 1 study (NCT00781365) and the Hyperlink 3 study (NCT02996565) are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory

OBJECTIVE

We identified challenges and solutions to using electronic health record (EHR) systems for the design and conduct of pragmatic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 2012, the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has served as the resource coordinating center for 21 pragmatic clinical trial demonstration projects. The EHR Core working group invited these demonstration projects to complete a written semistructured survey and used an inductive approach to review responses and identify EHR-related challenges and suggested EHR enhancements.

RESULTS

We received survey responses from 20 projects and identified 21 challenges that fell into 6 broad themes: (1) inadequate collection of patient-reported outcome data, (2) lack of structured data collection, (3) data standardization, (4) resources to support customization of EHRs, (5) difficulties aggregating data across sites, and (6) accessing EHR data.

DISCUSSION

Based on these findings, we formulated 6 prerequisites for PCTs that would enable the conduct of pragmatic research: (1) integrate the collection of patient-centered data into EHR systems, (2) facilitate structured research data collection by leveraging standard EHR functions, usable interfaces, and standard workflows, (3) support the creation of high-quality research data by using standards, (4) ensure adequate IT staff to support embedded research, (5) create aggregate, multidata type resources for multisite trials, and (6) create re-usable and automated queries.

CONCLUSION

We are hopeful our collection of specific EHR challenges and research needs will drive health system leaders, policymakers, and EHR designers to support these suggestions to improve our national capacity for generating real-world evidence.