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

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial

Background

Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed.

Methods

We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model.

Results

The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design.

Conclusion

Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Self-Measured Blood Pressure-Guided Pharmacotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of United States-Based Telemedicine Trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to implementing telemedicine hypertension management in the United States is unknown.

METHODS

We examined telemedicine hypertension management versus the effect of usual clinic-based care on blood pressure (BP) and patient/clinician-related heterogeneity in a systematic review/meta-analysis. We searched United States-based randomized trials from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and 2 trial registries. We used trial-level differences in BP and its control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity in univariable metaregression and in prespecified subgroups (clinicians leading pharmacotherapy [physician/nonphysician], self-management support [pharmacist/nurse], White versus non-White patient predominant trials [>50% patients/trial], diabetes predominant trials [≥25% patients/trial], and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials versus both non-White and diabetes patient predominant trials].

RESULTS

Thirteen, 11, and 7 trials were eligible for systolic and diastolic BP difference and BP control, respectively. Differences in systolic and diastolic BP and BP control rate were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -9.4 to -5.2), -2.7 mm Hg (-4.0 to -1.5), and 10.1% (0.4%-19.9%), respectively, favoring telemedicine. Greater BP reduction occurred in trials where nonphysicians led pharmacotherapy, pharmacists provided self-management support, White patient predominant trials, and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials, with no difference by diabetes predominant trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine hypertension management is more effective than clinic-based care in the United States, particularly when nonphysicians lead pharmacotherapy and pharmacists provide self-management support. Non-White patient predominant trials achieved less BP reduction. Equity-conscious, locally informed adaptation of telemedicine interventions is needed before wider implementation.

If You Build It, Will They Come? Patient and Provider Use of a Novel Hybrid Telehealth Care Pathway for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the referrals and use of a hybrid care model for low back pain that includes on-site care by physical therapists, physical activity training, and psychologically informed practice (PiP) delivered by telehealth in the Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Low Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial.

METHODS

Data were collected from November 2020 through February 2023 from 5 Veteran Health Administration clinics participating in AIM-Back, a multisite, cluster-randomized embedded pragmatic trial. The authors extracted data from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse to describe referral and enrollment metrics, telehealth use (eg, distribution of physical activity and PiP calls), and treatments used by physical therapists and telehealth providers.

RESULTS

Seven hundred one veterans were referred to the AIM-Back trial with 422 enrolling in the program (consult-to-enrollment rate = 60.2%). After travel restrictions were lifted, site visits resulted in a significant increase in referrals and a number of new referring providers. At initial evaluation by on-site physical therapists, 92.2% of veterans received pain modulation (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, manual therapy). Over 81% of enrollees completed at least 1 telehealth physical activity call, with a mean of 2.8 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of the 167 veterans who screened as medium to high risk of persistent disability, 74.9% completed at least 1 PiP call, with a mean of 2.5 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of those who completed at least 1 PiP call (n = 125), 100% received communication strategies, 97.6% received pain coping skills training, 89.6% received activity-based treatments, and 99.2% received education in a home program.

CONCLUSION

In implementing a hybrid care pathway for low back pain, the authors observed consistency in the delivery of core components (ie, pain modulation, use of physical activity training, and risk stratification to PiP), notable variability in telehealth calls, high use of PiP components, and increased referrals with tailored provider engagement.

IMPACT

These findings describe variability occurring within a hybrid care pathway and can inform future implementation efforts.

Tailored pharmacist-led intervention to improve adherence to Iron supplementation in premature infants: a randomized controlled trial in China

Introduction

Prematurity is due to a number of factors, especially genetics. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led patient-centered medication therapy management trial on iron deficiency and medication adherence among premature infants receiving iron supplementation at a tertiary hospital in Shaoxing, China.

Methods

In this randomised controlled trial, eighty-one premature infants, with or without genetic factors, born at 26 to 30 weeks and 6 days gestational age, will be recruited and randomised to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group will receive a pharmacist-driven discharge counseling on iron supplements from recruitment, until 12 months. The control group will receive care as usual. The main outcomes were haemoglobin (g/L), serum iron (μg/L), medication adherence estimation and differentiation scale, the satisfaction with information about medicines scale, beliefs about medicines questionnaire and the Bayley scales for infant development.

Results

A total of 81 patients were enrolled in the study. After intervention, results for the haemoglobin and serum iron differed significantly between the control group and the intervention group (101.36 vs. 113.55, P < 0.0001 and 51.13 vs. 101.36, P = 0.004). Additionally, there was a substantial difference between the intervention group and the control group in terms of patient medication adherence estimation and differentiation scale (27 vs. 34, P = 0.0002). the intervention group had better mental development index and psychomotor development index, compared with the control group (91.03 vs. 87.29, P = 0.035 and 95.05 vs. 90.00, P = 0.022).

Discussion

In premature infants with iron deficiency, our pharmacist-led team significantly improved clinical outcomes and medication adherence.

Heterogeneity of the Effect of Telemedicine Hypertension Management Approach on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US-based Clinical Trials

Background

Telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) uses home blood pressure (BP) to guide pharmacotherapy and telemedicine-based self-management support (SMS). Optimal approach to implementing TM-HTN in the US is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to examine the effect of TM-HTN vs. usual clinic-based care on BP and assessed heterogeneity by patient- and clinician-related factors. We searched US-based randomized clinical trials among adults from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and two trial registries to 7/7/2023. Two authors extracted, and a third author confirmed data. We used trial-level differences in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and BP control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity of effect in univariable meta-regression and in pre-specified subgroups [clinicians leading pharmacotherapy (physician vs. non-physician), SMS (pharmacist vs. nurse), White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (>50% patients/trial), diabetes predominant trials (≥25% patients/trial) and in trials that have majority of both non-White patients and patients with diabetes vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials.

Results

Thirteen, 11 and 7 trials were eligible for SBP, DBP and BP control, respectively. Differences in SBP, DBP and BP control rate were -7.3 mmHg (95% CI: - 9.4, -5.2), -2.7 mmHg (-4.0, -1.5) and 10.1% (0.4%, 19.9%), respectively, favoring TM-HTN. More BP reduction occurred in trials with non-physician vs. physician led pharmacotherapy (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.9/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), pharmacist vs. nurses provided SMS (9.3/4.1 mmHg vs. 5.6/1.0 mmHg, P=0.01 for SBP, P<0.01 for DBP), and White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.4/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. Lower BP reduction occurred in both diabetes and non-White patient predominant trials vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials (4.5/0.9 mmHg vs. 9.5/4.2 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP).

Conclusions

TM-HTN is more effective than clinic-based care in the US, particularly when non-physician led pharmacotherapy and pharmacist provided SMS. Non-White patient predominant trials seemed to achieve lesser BP reduction. Equity conscious, locally informed adaptation of TM-HTN is needed before wider implementation.

Clinical Perspective

What Is New?: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of US-based clinical trials, we found that telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) was more effective in reducing and controlling blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic based hypertension (HTN) care.The BP reduction was more evident when pharmacotherapy was led by non-physician compared with physicians and HTN self-management support was provided by clinical pharmacists compared with nurses,Non-White patient predominant trials achieved lesser BP reductions than White patient predominant trials.What Are the Clinical Implications?: Before wider implementation of TM-HTN intervention in the US, locally informed adaptation, such as optimizing the team-based HTN care approach, can provide more effective BP control.Without equity focused tailoring, TM-HTN intervention implemented as such can exacerbate inequities in BP control among non-White patients in the US.

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.