A concept‐wide association study to identify potential risk factors for nonadherence among prevalent users of antihypertensives

PurposeWe sought to determine whether an association study using information contained in clinical notes could identify known and potentially novel risk factors for nonadherence to antihypertensive medications.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective concept‐wide association study (CWAS) using clinical notes to identify potential risk factors for medication nonadherence, adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a combined comorbidity score. Participants included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older receiving care at the Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates network from 2010‐2012 and enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program. Concepts were extracted from clinical notes in the year prior to the index prescription date for each patient. We tested associations with the outcome for 5013 concepts extracted from clinical notes in a derivation cohort (4382 patients) and accounted for multiple hypothesis testing by using a false discovery rate threshold of less than 5% (q < .05). We then confirmed the associations in a validation cohort (3836 patients). Medication nonadherence was defined using a proportion of days covered (PDC) threshold less than 0.8 using pharmacy claims data.ResultsWe found 415 concepts associated with nonadherence, which we organized into 11 clusters using a hierarchical clustering approach. Volume depletion and overload, assessment of needs at the point of discharge, mood disorders, neurological disorders, complex coordination of care, and documentation of noncompliance were some of the factors associated with nonadherence.ConclusionsThis approach was successful in identifying previously described and potentially new risk factors for antihypertensive nonadherence using the clinical narrative.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151999/1/pds4850.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151999/2/pds4850_am.pd

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In “efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials,” if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an “efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial.” Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (Grant U24TR001609

A Useful and Sustainable Role for N-of-1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem.

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2&nbsp;N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials

A Useful and Sustainable Role for N‐of‐1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2 N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials