Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Methylprednisolone for Heart Surgery in Infants - A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although perioperative prophylactic glucocorticoids have been used for decades, whether they improve outcomes in infants after heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, registry-based trial involving infants (<1 year of age) undergoing heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 24 sites participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Registry data were used in the evaluation of outcomes. The infants were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic methylprednisolone (30 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo, which was administered into the cardiopulmonary-bypass pump-priming fluid. The primary end point was a ranked composite of death, heart transplantation, or any of 13 major complications. Patients without any of these events were assigned a ranked outcome based on postoperative length of stay. In the primary analysis, the ranked outcomes were compared between the trial groups with the use of odds ratios adjusted for prespecified risk factors. Secondary analyses included an unadjusted odds ratio, a win ratio, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1263 infants underwent randomization, of whom 1200 received either methylprednisolone (599 infants) or placebo (601 infants). The likelihood of a worse outcome did not differ significantly between the methylprednisolone group and the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.05; P = 0.14). Secondary analyses (unadjusted for risk factors) showed an odds ratio for a worse outcome of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.00) and a win ratio of 1.15 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32) in the methylprednisolone group as compared with the placebo group, findings suggestive of a benefit with methylprednisolone; however, patients in the methylprednisolone group were more likely than those in the placebo group to receive postoperative insulin for hyperglycemia (19.0% vs. 6.7%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among infants undergoing surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, prophylactic use of methylprednisolone did not significantly reduce the likelihood of a worse outcome in an adjusted analysis and was associated with postoperative development of hyperglycemia warranting insulin in a higher percentage of infants than placebo. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; STRESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03229538.).

Palliative Care in Heart Failure: The PAL-HF Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced heart failure (HF) is characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Conventional therapy may not sufficiently reduce patient suffering and maximize quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether an interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in addition to evidence-based HF care improves certain outcomes. METHODS: The authors randomized 150 patients with advanced HF between August 15, 2012, and June 25, 2015, to usual care (UC) (n = 75) or UC plus a palliative care intervention (UC + PAL) (n = 75) at a single center. Primary endpoints were 2 quality-of-life measurements, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (FACIT-Pal), assessed at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included assessments of depression and anxiety (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), spiritual well-being (measured via the FACIT-Spiritual Well-Being scale [FACIT-Sp]), hospitalizations, and mortality. RESULTS: Patients randomized to UC + PAL versus UC alone had clinically significant incremental improvement in KCCQ and FACIT-Pal scores from randomization to 6 months (KCCQ difference = 9.49 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94 to 18.05, p = 0.030; FACIT-Pal difference = 11.77 points, 95% CI: 0.84 to 22.71, p = 0.035). Depression improved in UC + PAL patients (HADS-depression difference = -1.94 points; p = 0.020) versus UC-alone patients, with similar findings for anxiety (HADS-anxiety difference = -1.83 points; p = 0.048). Spiritual well-being was improved in UC + PAL versus UC-alone patients (FACIT-Sp difference = 3.98 points; p = 0.027). Randomization to UC + PAL did not affect rehospitalization or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in advanced HF patients showed consistently greater benefits in quality of life, anxiety, depression, and spiritual well-being compared with UC alone. (Palliative Care in Heart Failure [PAL-HF]; NCT01589601).