Patients and Investigators Prefer Measures of Absolute Risk in Subgroups for Pragmatic Randomized Trials

Overview

Journal J Clin Epidemiol

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Public Health

Date 2018 Jul 4

PMID 29966732

Citations 15

Authors

Eleanor J Murray

Ellen C Caniglia

Sonja A Swanson

Sonia Hernandez-Diaz

Miguel A Hernan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Pragmatic randomized trials are important tools for shared decision-making, but no guidance exists on patients' preferences for types of causal information. We aimed to assess preferences of patients and investigators toward causal effects in pragmatic randomized trials.

Study Design And Setting: We (a) held three focus groups with patients (n = 23) in Boston, MA; (b) surveyed (n = 12) and interviewed (n = 5) investigators with experience conducting pragmatic trials; and (c) conducted a systematic literature review of pragmatic trials (n = 63).

Results: Patients were distrustful of new-to-market medications unless substantially more effective than existing choices, preferred stratified absolute risks, and valued adherence-adjusted analyses when they expected to adhere. Investigators wanted both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects but felt methods for estimating per-protocol effects were lacking. When estimating per-protocol effects, many pragmatic trials used inappropriate methods to adjust for adherence and loss to follow-up.

Conclusion: We made four recommendations for pragmatic trials to improve patient centeredness: (1) focus on superiority in effectiveness or safety, rather than noninferiority; (2) involve patients in specifying a priori subgroups; (3) report absolute measures of risk; and (4) complement intention-to-treat effect estimates with valid per-protocol effect estimates.

Citing Articles

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.

Krebs E, Weymann D, Ho C, Weppler A, Bosdet I, Karsan A JCO Precis Oncol. 2025; 9:e2400631.

PMID: 39983079 PMC: 11867803. DOI: 10.1200/PO-24-00631.

De-Mystifying the Clone-Censor-Weight Method for Causal Research Using Observational Data: A Primer for Cancer Researchers.

Gaber C, Ghazarian A, Strassle P, Ribeiro T, Salas M, Maringe C Cancer Med. 2024; 13(23):e70461.

PMID: 39642890 PMC: 11623977. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.70461.

Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients.

Ross R, Nunes E, Olfson M, Shulman M, Krawczyk N, Stuart E Addiction. 2024; 119(11):1975-1986.

PMID: 39099417 PMC: 11479822. DOI: 10.1111/add.16630.

Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Asthma Exacerbations: Which Patients Benefit Most?.

Wang T, Keil A, Buse J, Keet C, Kim S, Wyss R Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024; 21(11):1496-1506.

PMID: 39012183 PMC: 11568508. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202309-836OC.

Comparative effectiveness of extended release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients.

Ross R, Nunes E, Olfson M, Shulman M, Krawczyk N, Stuart E medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38343815 PMC: 10854342. DOI: 10.1101/2024.01.24.24301555.

References

Gilbody S, Littlewood E, Hewitt C, Brierley G, Tharmanathan P, Araya R . Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2015; 351:h5627. PMC: 4641883. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5627. View

Francis V, Korsch B, Morris M . Gaps in doctor-patient communication. Patients' response to medical advice. N Engl J Med. 1969; 280(10):535-40. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM196903062801004. View

Nagelkerke N, Fidler V, Bernsen R, Borgdorff M . Estimating treatment effects in randomized clinical trials in the presence of non-compliance. Stat Med. 2000; 19(14):1849-64. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1849::aid-sim506>3.0.co;2-1. View

Mansell D, Poses R, Kazis L, Duefield C . Clinical factors that influence patients' desire for participation in decisions about illness. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160(19):2991-6. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.19.2991. View

Allen M, MacLeod T, Handfield-Jones R, Sinclair D, Fleming M . Presentation of evidence in continuing medical education programs: a mixed methods study. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010; 30(4):221-8. DOI: 10.1002/chp.20086. View

Thorpe K, Zwarenstein M, Oxman A, Treweek S, Furberg C, Altman D . A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(5):464-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011. View

Hernan M, Hernandez-Diaz S . Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2011; 9(1):48-55. PMC: 3731071. DOI: 10.1177/1740774511420743. View

Zipkin D, Umscheid C, Keating N, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R . Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(4):270-80. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0295. View

McKibbon K, Wilczynski N, Haynes R . Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26(3):187-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00827.x. View

10.

Hernan M, Robins J . Per-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(14):1391-1398. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsm1605385. View

11.

Epstein A, Taylor W, Seage 3rd G . Effects of patients' socioeconomic status and physicians' training and practice on patient-doctor communication. Am J Med. 1985; 78(1):101-6. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(85)90469-3. View

12.

Gray R, Ives N, Rick C, Patel S, Gray A, Jenkinson C . Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9949):1196-205. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60683-8. View

13.

Holzel L, Kriston L, Harter M . Patient preference for involvement, experienced involvement, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with physician: a structural equation model test. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13:231. PMC: 3701592. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-231. View

14.

Ikramuddin S, Korner J, Lee W, Connett J, Inabnet W, Billington C . Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013; 309(21):2240-9. PMC: 3954742. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.5835. View

15.

Mouncey P, Osborn T, Sarah Power G, Harrison D, Zia Sadique M, Grieve R . Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(14):1301-11. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500896. View

16.

Murray E, Hernan M . Adherence adjustment in the Coronary Drug Project: A call for better per-protocol effect estimates in randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2016; 13(4):372-8. PMC: 4942353. DOI: 10.1177/1740774516634335. View

17.

Hazelton L, Allen M, MacLeod T, LeBlanc C, Boudreau M . Assessing Clinical Faculty Understanding of Statistical Terms Used to Measure Treatment Effects and Their Application to Teaching. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017; 36(4):278-283. DOI: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000121. View

18.

Kirchhof P, Andresen D, Bosch R, Borggrefe M, Meinertz T, Parade U . Short-term versus long-term antiarrhythmic drug treatment after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (Flec-SL): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint assessment trial. Lancet. 2012; 380(9838):238-46. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60570-4. View

19.

Joosten E, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert G, Sensky T, van der Staak C, de Jong C . Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008; 77(4):219-26. DOI: 10.1159/000126073. View

20.

DiazGranados C, Dunning A, Kimmel M, Kirby D, Treanor J, Collins A . Efficacy of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(7):635-45. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1315727. View