Comparing different medications is complicated when adherence to these medications differs. We can overcome the adherence issue by assessing effectiveness under sustained use, as in usual causal \'per-protocol\' estimands. However, when sustained use is challenging to satisfy in practice, the usefulness of these estimands can be limited. Here we propose a different class of estimands: separable effects for adherence. These estimands compare modified medications, holding fixed a component responsible for non-adherence. Under assumptions about treatment components\' mechanisms of effect, a separable effects estimand can quantify the effectiveness of medication initiation strategies on an outcome of interest under the adherence mechanism of one of the medications. These assumptions are amenable to interrogation by subject-matter experts and can be evaluated using causal graphs. We describe an algorithm for constructing causal graphs for separable effects, illustrate how these graphs can be used to reason about assumptions required for identification, and provide semi-parametric weighted estimators.

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.

The authors summarize the methodology for a new pragmatic comparative effectiveness research investigation, Cooling Prospectively Infants with Mild Encephalopathy (COOLPRIME), which uses sites\' existing mild hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) treatment preference (hypothermia or normothermia) to assess hypothermia effectiveness and safety. COOLPRIME\'s primary aim is to determine the safety and effectiveness of hypothermia compared to normothermia in mild HIE. Engagement of Families and Community Affected by Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy strongly favored Effectiveness over Efficacy Trials leading to COOL PRIME design.

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.

In a prospective observational study (POS) designed to assess the average causal effect of a treatment (e.g. Drug A) compared to a comparator (e.g. Drug B) in the treatment population, enrolling all patients who are assigned to the treatments of interest for follow-up has a potentially large negative impact on the statistical efficiency and bias of the analysis of the outcomes and on the cost of the study. \"Up-front matching\" is an innovative enrollment method for selecting patients for long-term follow-up among those who have already been assigned to treatment or comparator which uses frequency matching and hence avoids the restrictions of individual matching that other methods have used. To achieve potential statistical and logistical efficiencies in the POS, in up-front matching, a target population is defined based on a retrospective database which then enables selecting populations of patients for follow-up that have desirable statistical properties. In particular, the resulting populations of patients who are enrolled look like the population of treatment patients were randomized to treatment or comparator for the baseline covariates that are used to select patients for follow-up. The method is illustrated in detail for a study designed to assess the effect of injectable antipsychotics versus oral antipsychotics.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients.
METHODS: An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients\' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients).
CONCLUSIONS: Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023.