Comparison of explanatory and pragmatic design choices in a cluster-randomized hypertension trial: effects on enrollment, participant characteristics, and adherence
Abstract
Background: Explanatory trials are designed to assess intervention efficacy under ideal conditions, while pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether research-proven interventions are effective in “real-world” settings without substantial research support.
Methods: We compared two trials (Hyperlink 1 and 3) that tested a pharmacist-led telehealth intervention in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. We applied PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) scores to describe differences in the way these studies were designed and enrolled study-eligible participants, and the effect of these differences on participant characteristics and adherence to study interventions.
Results: PRECIS-2 scores demonstrated that Hyperlink 1 was more explanatory and Hyperlink 3 more pragmatic. Recruitment for Hyperlink 1 was conducted by study staff, and 2.9% of potentially eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were older, and more likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff scheduled the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was 98%. Conversely for Hyperlink 3, recruitment was conducted by clinic staff at routine encounters and 81% of eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were younger, and less likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff did not assist with scheduling the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was only 27%. Compared to Hyperlink 1, patients in Hyperlink 3 were more likely to be female, and Asian or Black, had lower socioeconomic indicators, and were more likely to have comorbidities. Owing to a lower BP for eligibility in Hyperlink 1 (≥140/90 mm Hg) than in Hyperlink 3 (≥150/95 mm Hg), mean baseline BP was 148/85 mm Hg in Hyperlink 1 and 158/92 mm Hg in Hyperlink 3.
Conclusion: The pragmatic design features of Hyperlink 3 substantially increased enrollment of study-eligible patients and of those traditionally under-represented in clinical trials (women, minorities, and patients with less education and lower income), and demonstrated that identification and enrollment of a high proportion of study-eligible subjects could be done by usual primary care clinic staff. However, the trade-off was much lower adherence to the telehealth intervention than in Hyperlink 1, which is likely to reflect uptake under real-word conditions and substantially dilute intervention effect on BP.
Trial registration: The Hyperlink 1 study (NCT00781365) and the Hyperlink 3 study (NCT02996565) are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Open paper (PDF) ↗
