Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Implementation and Dissemination Challenges and Opportunities

Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges that limit their applicability in real-world settings. As a consequence, pragmatic trials are increasingly viewed as a research design that overcomes some of these barriers with the potential to produce findings that are more reproducible. Although pragmatic methodology in long-term care is receiving increasing attention as an approach to improve successful dissemination and implementation, pragmatic trials present complexities of their own. To address these complexities and related issues, experts with experience conducting pragmatic trials, developing nursing home policy, participating in advocacy efforts, and providing clinical care in long-term care settings participated in a virtual consensus conference funded by the National Institute on Aging in Spring 2021. Participants identified 4 cross-cutting principles key to dissemination and implementation of pragmatic trial interventions: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) diversity and inclusion, (3) organizational strain and readiness, and (4) learn from adaptations. Participants emphasized that implementation processes must be grounded in the perspectives of the people who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the intervention once it is proven to be effective. In addition, messaging must speak to long-term care staff and all others who have a stake in its outcomes. Although our understanding of dissemination and implementation strategies remains underdeveloped, this article is designed to guide long-term care researchers and community providers who are increasingly aware of the need for pragmatism in disseminating and implementing evidence-based care interventions.     

Addition of a topoisomerase I inhibitor to trimodality therapy [cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II)/heat/radiation] in a murine tumor

The cytotoxicity of the topoisomerase I inhibitors, camptothecin and topotecan, toward exponentially growing EMT-6 murine mammary carcinoma cells under various conditions of oxygenation, pH and temperature was assessed. Under normal pH (pH 7.40) conditions both camptothecin and topotecan were more cytotoxic toward normally oxygenated cells. Both agents were more cytotoxic under acidic pH (pH 6.45) and the differential in cytotoxicity due to the cellular oxygenation level disappeared. Neither camptothecin nor topotecan was enhanced in cytotoxicity by hyperthermia (42°C or 43°C, 60 min) during drug exposure. Both camptothecin and topotecan killed increasing numbers of FSaIIC tumor cells with increasing dose of the drugs in vivo in a log/linear manner. Local hyperthermia (43°C, 30 min) increased the tumor cell killing of the drugs but decreased the toxicity of these agents to the bone marrow granulocyte/macrophage-colony-forming units. Topotecan was a more effective modulator of cisplatin than was camptothecin, as determined by FSaIIC tumor cell survival assay and by FSaIIC tumor growth delay. Although both camptothecin and topotecan were effective additions to a treatment regimen including cisplatin and daily fractionated radiation (5×3Gy), neither of these topoisomerase I inhibitors increased the tumor growth delay produced by the trimodality regimen of cisplatin/hyperthermia/radiation.Abbreviations Cisplatin cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) - GM-CFU granulocyte-macrophage progenitor colony-forming unit This work was supported by NCI grants RO1-47379 and RO1-50174     

Implementation and Preliminary Clinical Outcomes of a Pharmacist‐managed Venous Thromboembolism Clinic for Patients Treated With Rivaroxaban Post Emergency Department Discharge

Objective

The objective was to describe the implementation, work flow, and differences in outcomes between a pharmacist‐managed clinic for the outpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) using a non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulant versus care by a primary care provider (PCP).

Methods

Patients in the studied health system that are diagnosed with low‐risk VTE in the emergency department are often discharged without hospital admission. These patients are treated with a non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulant and follow‐up either in a pharmacist‐managed VTE clinic or with their PCP. Pharmacists in the VTE clinic work independently under a collaborative practice agreement (CPA). An evaluation of 34 patients, 17 in each treatment arm, was conducted to compare the differences in treatment‐related outcomes of rivaroxaban when managed by a pharmacist versus a PCP.

Results

The primary endpoint was a 6‐month composite of anticoagulation treatment‐related complications that included a diagnosis of major bleeding, recurrent thromboembolism, or fatality due to either major bleeding or recurrent thromboembolism. Secondary endpoints included number of hospitalizations, adverse events, and medication adherence. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between groups with one occurrence of the composite endpoint in each treatment arm (p = 1.000), both of which were recurrent thromboembolic events. Medication adherence assessment was formally performed in eight patients in the pharmacist group versus no patients in the control group. No differences were seen among other secondary endpoints.

Conclusions

The pharmacist‐managed clinic is a novel expansion of clinical pharmacy services that treats patients with low‐risk VTEs with rivaroxaban in the outpatient setting. The evaluation of outcomes provides support that pharmacist‐managed care utilizing standardized protocols under a CPA may be as safe as care by a PCP.