BioMeT and algorithm challenges: A proposed digital standardized evaluation framework

Technology is advancing at an extraordinary rate. Continuous flows of novel data are being generated with the potential to revolutionize how we better identify, treat, manage, and prevent disease across therapeutic areas. However, lack of security of confidence in digital health technologies is hampering adoption, particularly for biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) where frontline healthcare professionals are struggling to determine which BioMeTs are fit-for-purpose and in which context. Here, we discuss the challenges to adoption and offer pragmatic guidance regarding BioMeTs, cumulating in a proposed framework to advance their development and deployment in healthcare, health research, and health promotion. Furthermore, the framework proposes a process to establish an audit trail of BioMeTs (hardware and algorithms), to instill trust amongst multidisciplinary users

PROPHETIC: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the leading infection-related cause of death. Using simple clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology to identify patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia should enhance prevention efforts and facilitate development of new treatments in clinical trials. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology trends helpful in identifying patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Within the intensive care units of 28 United States hospitals, we conducted a prospective cohort study among adults hospitalized more than 48 hours and considered high risk for pneumonia (defined as treatment with invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support or high levels of supplemental oxygen). We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing nosocomial pneumonia. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified patient characteristics and treatment exposures associated with increased risk of pneumonia development during the intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: Between February 6, 2016 and October 7, 2016, 4613 high-risk patients were enrolled. Among 1464/4613 (32%) high-risk patients treated for possible nosocomial pneumonia, 537/1464 (37%) met the study pneumonia definition. Among high-risk patients, a multivariable logistic model was developed to identify key patient characteristics and treatment exposures associated with increased risk of nosocomial pneumonia development (c-statistic 0.709, 95% confidence interval 0.686 to 0.731). Key factors associated with increased odds of nosocomial pneumonia included an admission diagnosis of trauma or cerebrovascular accident, receipt of enteral nutrition, documented aspiration risk, and receipt of systemic antibacterials within the preceding 90 days. INTERPRETATION: Treatment for nosocomial pneumonia is common among intensive care unit patients receiving high levels of respiratory support, yet more than half of patients treated do not fulfill standard diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. Application of simple clinical criteria may improve the feasibility of clinical trials of pneumonia prevention and treatment by facilitating prospective identification of patients at highest risk

PROPHETIC EU: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit in European and United States Cohorts

Background The prospective identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia may improve clinical trial feasibility and foster antibacterial development. In a prior study conducted in the United States, clinical criteria were used to prospectively identify these patients; however, these criteria have not been applied in a European population. Methods Adults considered high risk for pneumonia (treatment with ventilation or high levels of supplemental oxygen) in the intensive care units of 7 European hospitals were prospectively enrolled from June 12 to December 27, 2017. We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing pneumonia according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance and a subset potentially eligible for antibacterial trial enrollment. We compared patient characteristics, treatment exposures, and pneumonia incidence in a European cohort and a previously described US cohort. Results Of 888 high-risk patients, 211/888 (24%) were treated for possible pneumonia, and 150/888 (17%) met the Food and Drug Administration definition for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. A higher proportion of European patients treated for possible pneumonia met the pneumonia definition (150/211 [71%] vs 537/1464 [37%]; P < .001). Among patients developing pneumonia, a higher proportion of European patients met antibacterial trial eligibility criteria (124/150 [83%] vs 371/537 [69%]; P < .001). Conclusions Clinical criteria prospectively identified high-risk patients with high rates of pneumonia in the European cohort. Despite higher rates of established risk factors and incident pneumonia, European patients were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics for possible pneumonia than US patients. Different treatment practices may contribute to lower rates of antibacterial trial enrollment in the United States

Stakeholders’ recommendations for revising Good Clinical Practice

The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is revising ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) initiated a project to identify and provide ICH with stakeholders’ priority areas and suggestions for revising ICH E6 GCP. We conducted a global online survey to identify areas of ICH E6 GCP that are and are not in need of revision. A total of 327 stakeholders completed the survey. Stakeholders represent many research roles and types of organizations, are employed in 39 countries, and conduct research in 153 countries. The ICH E6 GCP principles mentioned most often (range, 25%–29%) in need of revision were implementing systems that assure quality, providing medical care by qualified physicians/dentists, protecting confidentiality and privacy, obtaining informed consent, and documenting and storing information. The Investigator section (n = 244, 75%) and Sponsor section (n = 242, 74%) of ICH E6 GCP were identified as needing the most revision and the Investigator Brochure section (n = 166, 51%) as needing the least revision. The topic most frequently mentioned as needing revision is Monitoring (n = 146; 45%) in the Sponsor section. Although none of the principles or topics in ICH E6 GCP were identified as needing revision by the majority of stakeholders, a meaningful percentage of stakeholders identified areas that they believe need revision. These findings, which represent the views of a wide variety of stakeholders, may be useful to ICH for identifying where specifically to focus their revision efforts. CTTI provided the final report to ICH with the project findings for their consideration

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: an expert panel report

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert “Think Tank” panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry

PROPHETIC EU: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit in European and United States Cohorts

Background The prospective identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia may improve clinical trial feasibility and foster antibacterial development. In a prior study conducted in the United States, clinical criteria were used to prospectively identify these patients; however, these criteria have not been applied in a European population. Methods Adults considered high risk for pneumonia (treatment with ventilation or high levels of supplemental oxygen) in the intensive care units of 7 European hospitals were prospectively enrolled from June 12 to December 27, 2017. We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing pneumonia according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance and a subset potentially eligible for antibacterial trial enrollment. We compared patient characteristics, treatment exposures, and pneumonia incidence in a European cohort and a previously described US cohort. Results Of 888 high-risk patients, 211/888 (24%) were treated for possible pneumonia, and 150/888 (17%) met the Food and Drug Administration definition for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. A higher proportion of European patients treated for possible pneumonia met the pneumonia definition (150/211 [71%] vs 537/1464 [37%]; P < .001). Among patients developing pneumonia, a higher proportion of European patients met antibacterial trial eligibility criteria (124/150 [83%] vs 371/537 [69%]; P < .001). Conclusions Clinical criteria prospectively identified high-risk patients with high rates of pneumonia in the European cohort. Despite higher rates of established risk factors and incident pneumonia, European patients were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics for possible pneumonia than US patients. Different treatment practices may contribute to lower rates of antibacterial trial enrollment in the United States