Data monitoring committees for pragmatic clinical trials

In any clinical trial, it is essential to monitor the accumulating data to be sure that the trial continues to be safe for participants and that the trial is being conducted properly. Data monitoring committees, independent expert panels who undertake regular reviews of the data as the trial progresses, serve an important role in safeguarding the interests of research participants and ensuring trial integrity in many trials. Many pragmatic clinical trials, which aim to inform healthcare decisions by comparing alternate interventions in heterogeneous healthcare delivery settings, will warrant review by an independent data monitoring committee due to their potential impact on clinical practice. However, the very features that make a trial "pragmatic" may pose challenges in terms of which aspects of a trial to monitor and when it is appropriate for a data monitoring committee to intervene. Using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary tool that draws distinctions between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials, we review characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials that may have implications for data monitoring committees and interim monitoring plans. These include broad eligibility criteria, a focus on subjective patient-centered outcomes, and in some cases a lack of standardized follow-up procedures across study sites. Additionally, protocol adherence is often purposefully not addressed in pragmatic trials in order to accurately represent the clinical practice setting and maintain practicability of implementation; there are differing viewpoints as to whether adherence should be assessed and acted upon by data monitoring committees in these trials. Some other issues not specifically related to the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary criteria may also merit special consideration in pragmatic trials. Thresholds for early termination of a pragmatic clinical trial might be controversial. The distinguishing features of pragmatic clinical trials require careful consideration when developing interim data monitoring plans, and trial sponsors, investigators, and data monitoring committees should agree on a plan before trial inception. Finally, special expertise, such as an informatics, may be helpful on data monitoring committees for some pragmatic clinical trials. Patient representatives may provide particularly valuable insights in the monitoring process

Data monitoring committees for pragmatic clinical trials

In any clinical trial, it is essential to monitor the accumulating data to be sure that the trial continues to be safe for participants, and that the trial is being conducted properly. Data monitoring committees (DMCs), independent expert panels who undertake regular reviews of the data as the trial progresses, serve an important role in safeguarding the interests of research participants and ensuring trial integrity in many trials. Many pragmatic clinical trials, which aim to inform healthcare decisions by comparing alternate interventions in heterogeneous healthcare delivery settings, will warrant review by an independent DMC due to their potential impact on clinical practice. However, the very features that make a trial “pragmatic” may pose challenges in terms of which aspects of a trial to monitor and when it is appropriate for a data monitoring committee to intervene. Using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool (see Table 1) that draws distinctions between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials, we review characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials that may have implications for DMCs and interim monitoring plans. These include broad eligibility criteria, a focus on subjective patient-centered outcomes, and in some cases a lack of standardized follow-up procedures across study sites. Additionally, protocol adherence is often purposefully not addressed in pragmatic trials in order to accurately represent the clinical practice setting and maintain practicability of implementation; there are differing viewpoints as to whether adherence should be assessed and acted upon by DMCs in these trials. Some other issues not specifically related to the PRECIS criteria may also merit special consideration in pragmatic trials. Thresholds for early termination of a pragmatic clinical trial might be controversial. The distinguishing features of pragmatic clinical trials require careful consideration when developing interim data monitoring plans, and trial sponsors, investigators, and DMCs should agree on a plan before trial inception. Finally, special expertise, such as an informatics, may be helpful on DMCs for some pragmatic clinical trials. Patient representatives may provide particularly valuable insights in the monitoring process

Treatment goals for rheumatoid arthritis: patient engagement and goal collection

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proofof- concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach’s feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease

Engaging patients and parents to improve mental health intervention for youth with rheumatological disease

Abstract Background Mental health disorders are common in youth with rheumatological disease yet optimal intervention strategies are understudied in this population. We examined patient and parent perspectives on mental health intervention for youth with rheumatological disease. Methods We conducted a mixed methods cross-sectional study, via anonymous online survey, developed by researchers together with patient/parent partners, to quantitatively and qualitatively examine youth experiences with mental health services and resources in North America. Patients ages 14–24 years with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile dermatomyositis, or systemic lupus erythematous, and parents of patients ages 8–24 with these diseases were eligible (not required to participate in pairs). Participants self-reported mental health problems (categorized into clinician-diagnosed disorders vs self-diagnosed symptoms) and treatments (e.g. therapy, medications) received for the youth. Multivariate linear regression models compared patient and parent mean Likert ratings for level of: i) comfort with mental health providers, and ii) barriers to seeking mental health services, adjusting for potential confounders (patient age, gender, disease duration, and patient/parent visual analog score for disease-related health). Participants indicated usefulness of mental health resources; text responses describing these experiences were analyzed by qualitative description. Results Participants included 123 patients and 324 parents. Patients reported clinician-diagnosed anxiety (39%) and depression (35%); another 27 and 18% endorsed self-diagnosed symptoms of these disorders, respectively. 80% of patients with clinician-diagnosed disorders reported receiving treatment, while 11% of those with self-diagnosed symptoms reported any treatment. Patients were less comfortable than parents with all mental health providers. The top two barriers to treatment for patients and parents were concerns about mental health providers not understanding the rheumatological disease, and inadequate insurance coverage. Over 60% had used patient mental health resources, and over 60% of these participants found them to be helpful, although text responses identified a desire for resources tailored to patients with rheumatological disease. Conclusion Self-reported mental health problems are prevalent for youth in this sample with rheumatological disease, and obstacles to mental health treatment include disease-related and logistic factors. Strategies are needed to improve acceptance and accessibility of mental health intervention, including routine mental health screening and availability of disease-specific mental health resources

Toward Accelerated Authorization and Access to New Medicines for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

A meeting was organized to bring together multiple stakeholders involved in the testing and authorization of new medications for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) to discuss current issues surrounding clinical trials and access to new medications for children and adolescents with JIA. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance invited representatives of regulatory agencies (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and major pharmaceutical companies with JIA-approved products or products in development, patient and parent representatives, representatives of an advocacy organization (Arthritis Foundation), and pediatric rheumatology clinicians/investigators to a 1-day meeting in April 2018. The participants engaged in discussion regarding issues in clinical trials. As the pharmacologic options to treat inflammatory arthritis rapidly expand, registration trial designs to test medications in JIA patients must adapt. Many methodologies successfully used in the recent past are no longer feasible. The pool of patients meeting entry criteria who are willing to participate is shrinking while the number of medications to be tested is growing. Suggested solutions included proposing innovative clinical trial methods to regulatory agencies, as well as open discussions among stakeholders. Ensuring that new medications are authorized in a timely manner to meet the needs of JIA patients worldwide is critical. Approaches should include open dialog between regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders to develop and implement novel study designs, including patient and clinician perspectives to define meaningful trial outcomes, and changing existing study plans