National Academies Press: OpenBook

Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary (2013)

Chapter: 8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials

« Previous: 7 Research Partner Perspectives
Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×

8

The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials1

KEY SPEAKER THEMES

van Staa

•   Despite the advantages of a single health care system and electronic health records, the Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment trials face many of the same challenges that large simple trials (LSTs) conducted in the United States encounter.

•   Ways to encourage more LSTs need to be found because of the huge costs of not testing alternative treatments that are commonly prescribed.

•   To get to simpler trials, governance that protects participants as well as facilitates important research is required.

INTRODUCTION

The keynote address was delivered during lunch on the second day of the workshop by Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa. van Staa is the head of research for Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which is an observational data

________________

1 The views expressed during the keynote address are those of Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×

and interventional research service jointly funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

RANDOMIZED EVALUATIONS OF ACCEPTED
CHOICES IN TREATMENT TRIALS

Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment (REACT) is the title of an effort launched by CPRD to conduct pragmatic, large simple trials (van Staa, 2011). The goal of REACT is to test alternative clinical interventions commonly prescribed by physicians that have not been evaluated for their comparative effectiveness through the use of data routinely collected in the single electronic health record (EHR) system used by the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. van Staa began by noting that the motivation for the program lay with the National Health Service’s finding that participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not necessarily representative of the general population and that the actions of patients and clinicians in RCTs are not necessarily those of patients and clinicians in everyday clinical practice. In other words, RCTs can lack external validity. van Staa illustrated this be mentioning as examples the drugs Celebrex and Vioxx, which were approved on the basis of high-quality RCTs. However, when they were routinely prescribed to members of the general population—most of whom would not have qualified to participate in the RCTs, he noted—serious side effects emerged. Another problem that van Staa identified is the lack of evidence for many common treatments for prevalent diseases. If a given condition has more than one commonly prescribed treatment, physicians and patients do not have a basis for knowing which one is safer or more effective.

One of the missions of CPRD is to use data that are routinely collected in the EHR during care to conduct RCTs of common treatments while imposing a minimum burden on clinicians or patients. CPRD can do this because it has arrangements with a large number of general clinical practices to report health care data regularly. Currently, CPRD has records on about 5 million patients, about 8 percent of the patient population served by the National Health Service, and this database is updated monthly. van Staa noted that CPRD uses pseudoanonymized data and can link its data sets to other data sets, such as hospital data, disease registries, and death certificates.

At this time, CPRD is conducting two small REACT trials to test the feasibility of this approach. One study, RETRO-PRO, involving about 300 patients, is comparing two popular statins, simvastatin and atorvastatin, which have each been previously tested in RCTs against placebo. e-LUNG, the other study, involving 150 patients, looks at antibiotic use in patients

Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×

with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Some clinicians prescribe antibiotics for patients who experience a COPD exacerbation, and others do not. However, little evidence on the clinical effect of antibiotics on COPD exacerbations currently exists.

van Staa described the trial processes in more detail. He noted that participants in eLUNG must be recruited in real time, when they are having an exacerbation, which is done through the use of flagging software in the EHR that alerts the clinician that the patient may be eligible for the trial. In contrast, for RETRO-PRO, participating clinicians are sent a list of potentially eligible participants derived from information in the EHR database. Despite the very inclusive nature of the trials, van Staa noted that the trials had few eligibility criteria that had to be evaluated. In RETRO-PRO, they included whether the patients had used a statin before and whether they were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. If neither of these applied, patients were randomized into the trial. In the case of both trials, he explained, participating patients must consent to be included in the study. After this point, clinicians and patients are generally followed unobtrusively. Follow-up information is generally collected from the routinely reported EHR data, unless some anomaly or other question arises, in which case CPRD researchers can contact the clinician for information.

Although REACT trials have the advantage of working in a single very large health care system with a single EHR, in which uniform patient information is continuously reported to a central data bank, they have faced challenges, which van Staa enumerated. One major obstacle is the burdensome requirements for informed consent and regulatory reporting oversight imposed by research governance. van Staa detailed how CPRD proposed a one-page informed consent form, which the ethics committee would not approve and insisted on lengthening. Additionally, regulators required reports every 7 or 15 days, depending on the item. The researchers argued that reports every 7 or 15 days would be burdensome on the clinicians and that monthly reports would be adequate, given the low degree of risk of the interventions. Clinicians were also required to undergo training in the protocol, despite CPRD’s argument that training in prescribing statins was probably not necessary and would be an additional burden on clinicians.

van Staa noted that another problem that the REACT trials face is the lack of incentives for clinicians to participate, given their already very busy care schedules. Possibly as a result of this, CPRD found that relatively few potentially eligible patients were being recruited. A few weeks earlier, for example, van Staa reported that 10 patients had been recruited in a certain practice but that another 260 who could have been recruited were not.

Variable recording and coding of health care data, especially across the linked data sets, is another challenge to the REACT trials, as are variations in practice across National Health Service sites. For example, one of the

Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×

issues that RETRO-PRO faced was a price difference between simvastatin and atorvastatin. Many local NHS organizations require clinicians to use the cheaper one, simvastatin, and will not make an exception for research, even though the research might have implications for cost-effectiveness. Because of this, van Staa shared, in some locations, clinicians prescribe atorvastatin for the 3 months of the study and then switch the patient back to simvastatin, preventing long-term follow-up.

Despite the many challenges that the REACT trials have faced, van Staa concluded with the observation that ways must be found to make LSTs work because not doing them has a cost to patients. For example, a patient who currently has a COPD exacerbation receives an antibiotic or does not receive an antibiotic, depending on which clinician he or she happens to see. Instead, he said, clinicians should know whether antibiotics work or not. Regarding the sharp ethical distinction between research and clinical practice discussed earlier in the workshop, van Staa posited that research on chronic conditions, such as COPD, would provide a benefit to the individual participant as well as a generalizable benefit, because the participant would continue to have the condition after the trial ends.

REFERENCE

van Staa, T., B. Goldacre, M. Gulliford, J. Cassell, M. Pirmohamed, A. Taweel, B. Delaney, and L. Smeeth. 2011. Randomised Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment (REACT) trials: Large-scale pragmatic trials within databases of routinely collected electronic healthcare records, abstr. A104. Presented at the 12th Clinical Trials Methodology Conference.

Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"8 The Randomized Evaluations of Accepted Choices in Treatment Trials." Institute of Medicine. 2013. Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18400.
×
Page 58
Next: 9 Strategies Going Forward »
Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $38.00 Buy Ebook | $30.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often referred to as the "gold standard" of clinical research. However, in its current state, the U.S. clinical trials enterprise faces substantial challenges to the efficient and effective conduct of research. Streamlined approaches to RCTs, such as large simple trials (LSTs), may provide opportunities for progress on these challenges. Clinical trials support the development of new medical products and the evaluation of existing products by generating knowledge about safety and efficacy in pre- and post-marketing settings and serve to inform medical decision making and medical product development. Although well-designed and -implemented clinical trials can provide robust evidence, a gap exists between the evidence needs of a continuously learning health system, in which all medical decisions are based on the best available evidence, and the reality, in which the generation of timely and practical evidence faces significant barriers.

Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System is the summary of a workshop convened by the Institute of Medicine's Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care and the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation. Experts from a wide range of disciplines--including health information technology, research funding, clinical research methods, statistics, patients, product development, medical product regulation, and clinical outcomes research--met to marshal a better understanding of the issues, options, and approaches to accelerating the use of LSTs. This publication summarizes discussions on the potential of LSTs to improve the speed and practicality of knowledge generation for medical decision making and medical product development, including efficacy and effectiveness assessments, in a continuously learning health system.

Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System explores acceleration of the use of LSTs to improve the speed and practicality of knowledge generation for medical decision making and medical product development; considers the concepts of LST design, examples of successful LSTs, the relative advantages of LSTs, and the infrastructure needed to build LST capacity as a routine function of care; identifies structural, cultural, and regulatory barriers hindering the development of an enhanced LST capacity; discusses needs and strategies in building public demand for and participation in LSTs; and considers near-term strategies for accelerating progress in the uptake of LSTs in the United States.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!