Randomized clinical trials provide gold-standard evidence for the efficacy of interventions, but have limitations, including highly selected populations that make inference on effectiveness difficult and a lack of ability to adapt and change midstream.
Methods:
We propose two innovations for pragmatic trial design.
Results:
Evidence-based evolutionary testing, a framework that allows adaptation of interventions and rapid-cycle innovation, preserves the power of randomization while acknowledging the need for adaptation and learning. An opt-out consent framework increases the fraction of the target population who participate in trials, but may lead to dampening of effect sizes.
Conclusion:
Pragmatic trials offer numerous advantages in the evaluation of behavioral interventions in health. Statistical innovations, including evidence-based evolutionary testing and opt-out framing of consent and enrollment processes, can enhance the power of pragmatic trials and lead to more rapid progress.
PiantadosiS.Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
2.
FriedmanLMFurbergCDDeMetsDL.Fundamentals of clinical trial. 4th ed.New York: Springer, 2010.
3.
ChalkidouKTunisSWhicherD. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials2012; 9: 436–446.
4.
TunisSRStryerDBClancyCM.Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA2003; 290: 1624–1632.
5.
LoewensteinGAschDAVolppKG.Behavioral economics holds potential to deliver better results for patients, insurers, and employers. Health Aff2013; 32: 1244–1250.
6.
JohnsonEJGoldsteinD.Medicine: do defaults save lives?Science2003; 302: 1338–1339.
7.
MadrianBCSheaDF.The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ2001; 116: 1149–1187.
8.
CronqvistHThalerRH.Design choices in privatized social-security systems: learning from the Swedish experience. Am Econ Rev2004; 94: 424–428.
9.
VrijensBVinczeGKristantoP. Adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatments: longitudinal study of electronically compiled dosing histories. BMJ2008; 336: 1114–1117.
10.
JackeviciusCAMamdaniMTuJV.Adherence with statin therapy in elderly patients with and without acute coronary syndromes. JAMA2002; 288: 462–467.
11.
HoPMSpertusJAMasoudiFA. Impact of medication therapy discontinuation on mortality after myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med2006; 166: 1842–1847.
12.
HudsonMRichardHPiloteL.Parabolas of medication use and discontinuation after myocardial infarction—are we closing the treatment gap?Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2007; 16: 773–785.
13.
NewbyLKLaPointeNMChenAY. Long-term adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention therapies in coronary artery disease. Circulation2006; 113: 203–212.
14.
BennerJSGlynnRJMogunH. Long-term persistence in use of statin therapy in elderly patients. JAMA2002; 288: 455–461.
15.
GislasonGHRasmussenJNAbildstrømSZ. Long-term compliance with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J2006; 27: 1153–1158.
16.
KulkarniSPAlexanderKPLytleB. Long-term adherence with cardiovascular drug regimens. Am Heart J2006; 151: 185–191.
17.
SimpsonEBeckCRichardH. Drug prescriptions after acute myocardial infarction: dosage, compliance, and persistence. Am Heart J2003; 145: 438–444.
18.
EagleKAKline-RogersEGoodmanSG. Adherence to evidence-based therapies after discharge for acute coronary syndromes: an ongoing prospective, observational study. Am J Med2004; 117: 73–81.
19.
BlackburnDFDobsonRTBlackburnJL. Adherence to statins, beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors following a first cardiovascular event: a retrospective cohort study. Can J Cardiol2005; 21: 485–488.
20.
ChoudhryNKAvornJGlynnRJ. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med2011; 365: 2088–2097.
21.
BosworthHBPowersBJOlsenMK. Home blood pressure management and improved blood pressure control: results from a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med2011; 171: 1173–1180.
22.
OmboniSGuardaA.Impact of home blood pressure telemonitoring and blood pressure control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Hypertens2011; 24: 989–998.
23.
AschDATroxelABStewartWF. Effect of financial incentives to physicians, patients, or both on lipid levels: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA2015; 314: 1926–1935.
24.
TroxelABAschDAMehtaSJ. Rationale and design of a randomized trial of automated hovering for post-myocardial infarction patients: the HeartStrong program. Am Heart J, Accepted.
25.
AschDAMullerRWVolppKG.Automated hovering in health care—watching over the other 5000 hours. N Engl J Med2012; 367: 1–3.
26.
VolppKGTerwieschCTroxelAB. Making the RCT more useful for innovation with evidence-based evolutionary testing. Healthc2013; 1: 4–7.
27.
AysolaJTroxelABAschDA. A randomized controlled trial of opt-in versus opt-out enrollment into a diabetes management intervention. Technical Report, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 15June, 2015.
28.
SelkerHGrossmannCAdamsA. The common rule and continuous improvement in health care: a learning health system perspective. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2011.
