Browsing by Subject "Comparative effectiveness research"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparative risk of severe hypoglycemia among concomitant users of thiazolidinedione antidiabetic agents and antihyperlipidemics
    (Elsevier, 2016-05) Leonard, Charles E.; Han, Xu; Bilker, Warren B.; Flory, James H.; Brensinger, Colleen M.; Flockhart, David A.; Gagne, Joshua J.; Cardillo, Serena; Hennessy, Sean; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    We conducted high-dimensional propensity score-adjusted cohort studies to examine whether thiazolidinedione use with a statin or fibrate was associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. We found that concomitant therapy with a thiazolidinedione+fibrate was associated with a generally delayed increased risk of severe hypoglycemia.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Feasibility of Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Research and Validation of a Clinical Disease Activity Score for Chronic Nonbacterial Osteomyelitis
    (The Journal of Rheumatology, 2023) Wu, Eveline Y.; Oliver, Melissa; Scheck, Joshua; Lapidus, Sivia; Akca, Ummusen Kaya; Yasin, Shima; Stern, Sara M.; Insalaco, Antonella; Pardeo, Manuela; Simonini, Gabriele; Marrani, Edoardo; Wang, Xing; Huang, Bin; Kovalick, Leonard K.; Rosenwasser, Natalie; Casselman, Gabriel; Liau, Adriel; Shao, Yurong; Yang, Claire; Mosa, Doaa Mosad; Tucker, Lori; Girschick, Hermann; Laxer, Ronald M.; Akikusa, Jonathan D.; Hedrich, Christian; Onel, Karen; Dedeoglu, Fatma; Twilt, Marinka; Ferguson, Polly J.; Ozen, Seza; Zhao, Yongdong; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Objective: Prospective comparative effectiveness research (CER) in chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) is lacking. Our objectives were to (1) determine the use and safety of each consensus treatment plan (CTP) regimen for CNO, (2) assess the feasibility of using the Chronic Nonbacterial Osteomyelitis International Registry (CHOIR) data for CER, and (3) develop and validate a CNO clinical disease activity score (CDAS) using CHOIR. Methods: Consenting children or young adults with CNO were enrolled into CHOIR. Demographic, clinical, and imaging data were prospectively collected. The CNO CDAS was developed through a Delphi survey and nominal group technique. External validation surveys were administered to CHOIR participants. Results: One hundred forty (78.2%) CHOIR participants enrolled between August 2018 and September 2020 received at least 1 CTP regimen. Baseline characteristics from different CTP groups were well matched. Patient pain, patient global assessment, and clinical CNO lesion count were key variables included in the CNO CDAS. The CDAS showed a strong correlation with patient/parent report of difficulty using a limb, back, or jaw and patient/parent report of disease severity, but a weak correlation with patient/parent report of fatigue, sadness, and worry. The change in CDAS was significant in patients reporting disease worsening or improvement (P < 0.001). The CDAS significantly decreased after initiating second-line treatments from median 12.0 (IQR 8.0-15.5) to 5.0 (IQR 3.0-12.0; P = 0.002). Although second-line treatments were well tolerated, psoriasis was the most common adverse event. Conclusion: The CNO CDAS was developed and validated for disease monitoring and assessment of treatment effectiveness. CHOIR provided a comprehensive framework for future CER.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Hohenschurz-Schmidt, David; Cherkin, Dan; Rice, Andrew S. C.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Turk, Dennis C.; McDermott, Michael P.; Bair, Matthew J.; DeBar, Lynn L.; Edwards, Robert R.; Evans, Scott R.; Farrar, John T.; Kerns, Robert D.; Rowbotham, Michael C.; Wasan, Ajay D.; Cowan, Penney; Ferguson, McKenzie; Freeman, Roy; Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Gilron, Ian; Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna; Iyengar, Smriti; Kamp, Cornelia; Karp, Barbara I.; Kleykamp, Bethea A.; Loeser, John D.; Mackey, Sean; Malamut, Richard; McNicol, Ewan; Patel, Kushang V.; Schmader, Kenneth; Simon, Lee; Steiner, Deborah J.; Veasley, Christin; Vollert, Jan; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Real-World Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Against Infection and Severe Diseases in Children and Adolescents
    (American College of Physicians, 2024) Wu, Qiong; Tong, Jiayi; Zhang, Bingyu; Zhang, Dazheng; Chen, Jiajie; Lei, Yuqing; Lu, Yiwen; Wang, Yudong; Li, Lu; Shen, Yishan; Xu, Jie; Bailey, L. Charles; Bian, Jiang; Christakis, Dimitri A.; Fitzgerald, Megan L.; Hirabayashi, Kathryn; Jhaveri, Ravi; Khaitan, Alka; Lyu, Tianchen; Rao, Suchitra; Razzaghi, Hanieh; Schwenk, Hayden T.; Wang, Fei; Gage Witvliet, Margot I.; Tchetgen Tchetgen, Eric J.; Morris, Jeffrey S.; Forrest, Christopher B.; Chen, Yong; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: The efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine in pediatrics was assessed by randomized trials before the Omicron variant's emergence. The long-term durability of vaccine protection in this population during the Omicron period remains limited. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of BNT162b2 in preventing infection and severe diseases with various strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in previously uninfected children and adolescents. Design: Comparative effectiveness research accounting for underreported vaccination in 3 study cohorts: adolescents (12 to 20 years) during the Delta phase and children (5 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 20 years) during the Omicron phase. Setting: A national collaboration of pediatric health systems (PEDSnet). Participants: 77 392 adolescents (45 007 vaccinated) during the Delta phase and 111 539 children (50 398 vaccinated) and 56 080 adolescents (21 180 vaccinated) during the Omicron phase. Intervention: First dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine versus no receipt of COVID-19 vaccine. Measurements: Outcomes of interest include documented infection, COVID-19 illness severity, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and cardiac complications. The effectiveness was reported as (1-relative risk)*100, with confounders balanced via propensity score stratification. Results: During the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.1% to 98.7%) against documented infection among adolescents, with no statistically significant waning after receipt of the first dose. An analysis of cardiac complications did not suggest a statistically significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. During the Omicron period, the effectiveness against documented infection among children was estimated to be 74.3% (CI, 72.2% to 76.2%). Higher levels of effectiveness were seen against moderate or severe COVID-19 (75.5% [CI, 69.0% to 81.0%]) and ICU admission with COVID-19 (84.9% [CI, 64.8% to 93.5%]). Among adolescents, the effectiveness against documented Omicron infection was 85.5% (CI, 83.8% to 87.1%), with 84.8% (CI, 77.3% to 89.9%) against moderate or severe COVID-19, and 91.5% (CI, 69.5% to 97.6%) against ICU admission with COVID-19. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against the Omicron variant declined 4 months after the first dose and then stabilized. The analysis showed a lower risk for cardiac complications in the vaccinated group during the Omicron variant period. Limitation: Observational study design and potentially undocumented infection. Conclusion: This study suggests that BNT162b2 was effective for various COVID-19-related outcomes in children and adolescents during the Delta and Omicron periods, and there is some evidence of waning effectiveness over time.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Hohenschurz-Schmidt, David J.; Cherkin, Dan; Rice, Andrew S. C.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Turk, Dennis C.; McDermott, Michael P.; Bair, Matthew J.; DeBar, Lynn L.; Edwards, Robert R.; Farrar, John T.; Kerns, Robert D.; Markman, John D.; Rowbotham, Michael C.; Sherman, Karen J.; Wasan, Ajay D.; Cowan, Penney; Desjardins, Paul; Ferguson, McKenzie; Freeman, Roy; Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Gilron, Ian; Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna; Hertz, Sharon H.; Iyengar, Smriti; Kamp, Cornelia; Karp, Barbara I.; Kleykamp, Bethea A.; Loeser, John D.; Mackey, Sean; Malamut, Richard; McNicol, Ewan; Patel, Kushang V.; Sandbrink, Friedhelm; Schmader, Kenneth; Simon, Lee; Steiner, Deborah J.; Veasley, Christin; Vollert, Jan; Anesthesia, School of Medicine
    Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Traumatic Brain Injury-Practice Based Evidence Study: Design and Patients, Centers, Treatments, and Outcomes
    (Elsevier, 2015-08) Horn, Susan D.; Corrigan, John D.; Bogner, Jennifer; Hammond, Flora M.; Steel, Ronald T.; Smout, Randall J.; Barrett, Ryan S.; Dijkers, Marcel P.; Whiteneck, Gale G.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    OBJECTIVES: To describe study design, patients, centers, treatments, and outcomes of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) practice-based evidence (PBE) study and to evaluate the generalizability of the findings to the U.S. TBI inpatient rehabilitation population. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational study. SETTING: Ten inpatient rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=2130) enrolled between October 2008 and September 2011 and admitted for inpatient rehabilitation after an index TBI injury. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Return to acute care during rehabilitation, rehabilitation length of stay, FIM at discharge, residence at discharge, and 9 months postdischarge rehospitalization, FIM, participation, and subjective well-being. RESULTS: The level of admission FIM cognitive score was found to create relatively homogeneous subgroups for the subsequent analysis of best treatment combinations. There were significant differences in patient and injury characteristics, treatments, rehabilitation course, and outcomes by admission FIM cognitive subgroups. TBI-PBE study patients were overall similar to U.S. national TBI inpatient rehabilitation populations. CONCLUSIONS: This TBI-PBE study succeeded in capturing naturally occurring variation in patients and treatments, offering opportunities to study best treatments for specific patient impairments. Subsequent articles in this issue report differences between patients and treatments and associations with outcomes in greater detail.