The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded multiple large-scale comparative effectiveness clinical trials evaluating palliative care (PC) and advance care planning (ACP) healthcare delivery models. This article provides an overview of the most common barriers our investigative teams encountered while implementing these trials and the strategies we utilized to overcome these challenges, with particular attention to identifying research partners for multisite trials; addressing contracting and regulatory issues; creating a team governance structure; training and engaging study staff across sites; recruiting, consenting, and enrolling study participants; collecting PC and ACP data and study outcomes; and managing multisite collaborations. The goal of this article is to provide guidance on how to best plan for and conduct rigorous trials evaluating PC and ACP healthcare delivery interventions moving forward.

Aim: Although the US FDA encourages manufacturers of medical devices to submit real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decisions, the ability of real-world data (RWD) to generate evidence suitable for decision making remains unclear. The 2017 Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA IV), authorized the National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc) to conduct pilot projects, or \'Test-Cases\', to assess whether current RWD captures the information needed to answer research questions proposed by industry stakeholders. We synthesized key lessons about the challenges conducting research with RWD and the strategies used by research teams to enhance their ability to generate evidence from RWD based on 18 Test-Cases conducted between 2020 and 2022. Materials & methods: We reviewed study protocols and reports from each Test-Case team and conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with representatives of participating organizations. Interview transcripts were coded and thematically analyzed. Results: Challenges that stakeholders encountered in working with RWD included the lack of unique device identifiers, capturing key data elements and their appropriate meaning in structured data, limited reliability of diagnosis and procedure codes in structured data, extracting information from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data, limited capture of long-term study end points, missing data and data sharing. Successful strategies included using manufacturer and supply chain data, leveraging clinical registries and registry reporting processes to collect and aggregate data, querying standardized EHR data, implementing natural language processing algorithms and using multidisciplinary research teams. Conclusion: The Test-Cases identified numerous challenges working with RWD but also opportunities to address these challenges and improve researchers\' ability to use RWD to generate evidence on medical devices.

Aim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine\'s life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences. Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada\'s Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorité de Santé, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies\' expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment (CTRCI) can substantially reduce the quality of life of cancer survivors. Many treatments of CTRCI have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including psychological interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and other therapies. There is a pressing need to establish the benefits and harms of previously studied CTRCI treatments. The proposed systematic review and network meta-analyses will assess the relative efficacy and safety of competing interventions for the management of CTRCI.
METHODS: In consultation with the review team, an experienced medical information specialist will draft electronic search strategies for MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Trials Registry. We will seek RCTs of interventions for the treatment of CTRCI in adults with any cancer, except cancers/metastases of the central nervous system. Due to the anticipated high search yields, dual independent screening of citations will be expedited by use of an artificial intelligence/machine learning tool. The co-primary outcomes of interest will be subjective and objective cognitive function. Secondary outcomes of interest will include measures of quality of life, mental and physical health symptoms, adherence to treatment, and harms (overall and treatment-related harms and harms associated with study withdrawal), where feasible, random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be pursued. We will address the anticipated high clinical and methodological heterogeneity through meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and/or sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed systematic review will deliver a robust comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of existing therapies for the management of CTRCI. These findings will inform clinical decisions, identify evidence gaps, and identify promising therapies for future evaluation in RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the USA. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established.
METHODS: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 h of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 h will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient-reported quality of life measures.
CONCLUSIONS: In vitro and in vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04217551. Registered on 30 December 2019.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation are at high risk for ischemic stroke, but most are not treated with anticoagulants. This study compared the effectiveness and safety between oral anticoagulant (OAC) users and non-users.
METHODS: We conducted a new-user retrospective cohort study by using Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments linked with Medicare claims. The participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation residing in US nursing homes between 2011 and 2016, aged ≥ 65 years. The primary outcomes were occurrence of an ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (effectiveness), occurrence of intracranial or extracranial bleeding (safety) and net clinical outcome (effectiveness or safety outcomes). Secondary outcomes included total mortality and a net clinical and mortality outcome. Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Grey models estimated multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and sub-distribution hazard ratios (sHRs).
RESULTS: Outcome rates were low (effectiveness: OAC: 0.86; non-users: 1.73; safety: OAC: 2.26; non-users: 1.75 (per 100 person-years)). OAC use was associated with a lower rate of the effectiveness outcome (sHR: 0.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.61-0.77), higher rates of the safety (sHR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.58-1.84) and net clinical outcomes (sHR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13-1.28) lower rate of all-cause mortality outcome (sHR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.59-0.61), and lower rate of the net clinical and mortality outcome (sHR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.59-0.61). Warfarin users, but not DOAC users, had a higher rate of the net clinical outcome versus OAC non-users.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the benefits of treatment with OACs to prevent ischemic strokes and increase longevity, while highlighting the need to weigh apparent benefits against elevated risk for bleeding. Results were consistent with net favorability of DOACs versus warfarin.

UNASSIGNED: There is a substantial gap between demand for and availability of mental health services. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are promising tools for bridging this gap, yet little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: To assess whether patients randomized to a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based or mindfulness-based DMHI had greater improvements in mental health symptoms than patients randomized to the enhanced personalized feedback (EPF)-only DMHI.
UNASSIGNED: SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial was conducted between May 13, 2020, and December 12, 2022, with follow-up at 6 weeks. Adult patients of outpatient psychiatry services across various clinics within the University of Michigan Health System with a scheduled or recent outpatient psychiatry appointment were recruited. Eligible patients were randomized to an intervention arm. All analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 intervention arms: (1) EPF only; (2) Silvercloud only, a mobile application designed to deliver CBT strategies; (3) Silvercloud plus EPF; (4) Headspace only, a mobile application designed to train users in mindfulness practices; and (5) Headspace plus EPF.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; score range: 0-27, with higher scores indicating greater depression symptoms). Secondary outcomes included changes in anxiety, suicidality, and substance use symptoms.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2079 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [14.3] years; 1423 self-identified as women [68.4%]) completed the baseline survey. The baseline mean (SD) PHQ-9 score was 12.7 (6.4) and significantly decreased for all 5 intervention arms at 6 weeks (from -2.1 [95% CI, -2.6 to -1.7] to -2.9 [95% CI, -3.4 to -2.4]; n = 1885). The magnitude of change was not significantly different across the 5 arms (F4,1879 = 1.19; P = .31). Additionally, the groups did not differ in decrease in anxiety or substance use symptoms. However, the Headspace arms reported significantly greater improvements on a suicidality measure subscale compared with the Silvercloud arms (mean difference in mean change = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.20-1.06; P = .004).
UNASSIGNED: This randomized clinical trial found decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms across all DMHIs and minimal evidence that specific applications were better than others. The findings suggest that DMHIs may provide support for patients during waiting list-related delays in care.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04342494.

暂无摘要。

In this update, we discuss recent US FDA guidance offering more specific guidelines on appropriate study design and analysis to support causal inference for non-interventional studies and the launch of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) public electronic catalogues. We also highlight an article recommending assessing data quality and suitability prior to protocol finalization and a Journal of the American Medical Association-endorsed framework for using causal language when publishing real-world evidence studies. Finally, we explore the potential of large language models to automate the development of health economic models.