Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis

  • Quality of Care in Osteoporosis (S Silverman and J Curtis, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for designing and conducting a pragmatic clinical trial compared with a classical randomized clinical trial.

Recent Findings

Pragmatic clinical trials are a popular study design testing effectiveness of health interventions and are intended to address the limitations associated with traditional explanatory randomized clinical trials testing efficacy of interventions. To date, only few pragmatic clinical trials have been conducted in osteoporosis.

Summary

Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under routine clinical practice setting and are intended to inform policy makers and clinical decisions. Osteoporosis is a chronic disease well-suited to this particular study design given the existence of a clear and specific natural endpoint, namely fracture occurrence, and the availability of several treatments to prevent fractures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(67)90041-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dal-Ré R, Janiaud P, Ioannidis JPA. Real-world evidence: how pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018;16:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1038-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:464–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2147This manuscript provides the definition of the PRECIS-2 tool. The PRECIS-2 tool is intended to help trialists design their clinical trials.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Black DM, Rosen CJ. Clinical practice. Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:254–62. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1513724.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D, Robinson S, Johnston J. A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials. 2015;16:495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1023-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liberman UA, Weiss SR, Bröll J, Minne HW, Quan H, Bell NH, et al. Effect of oral alendronate on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The Alendronate Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1437–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199511303332201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rossini M, Adami G, Adami S, Viapiana O, Gatti D. Safety issues and adverse reactions with osteoporosis management. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016;15:321–32. https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2016.1136287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kendler DL, Marin F, Zerbini CAF, Russo LA, Greenspan SL, Zikan V, et al. Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:230–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32137-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res. 1993;8:1137–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650080915.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SY, Flory J, Relton C. Ethics and practice of trials within cohorts: an emerging pragmatic trial design. Clin Trials. 2018;15:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774517746620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson EE, Newman SB, Matthews AK. Improving informed consent: stakeholder views. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017;8:178–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2017.1362488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. • Warriner AH, Foster PJ, Mudano A, Wright NC, Melton ME, Sattui SE, et al. A pragmatic randomized trial comparing tablet computer informed consent to traditional paper-based methods for an osteoporosis study. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;3:32–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2016.02.003This manuscript presents the results of a PCT comparing eConsent and paper-based consent in osteoporosis.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Junghans C, Jones M. Consent bias in research: how to avoid it. Heart. 2007;93:1024–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.120113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yen P-Y, Sousa KH, Bakken S. Examining construct and predictive validity of the Health-IT Usability Evaluation Scale: confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling results. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:e241–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001811.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.2.139.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (final rule). 82 Federal Register 7149, January 19, 2017., (2017).The "Common Rule" governs the ethical conduct of research.

  18. Sugarman J, Califf RM. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA. 2014;311:2381–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.4164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellenberg SS. Randomization designs in comparative clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1404–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198405243102141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fahed R, Finitsis S, Khoury N, Deschaintre Y, Daneault N, Gioia L, et al. A randomized pragmatic care trial on endovascular acute stroke interventions (EASI): criticisms, responses, and ethics of integrating research and clinical care. Trials. 2018;19:508. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2870-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. McRae AD, Taljaard M, Weijer C. Cluster-randomized trials: a closer look. Clin Trials. 2016;13:294–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774516629405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kerger BD, Bernal A, Paustenbach DJ, Huntley-Fenner G. Halo and spillover effect illustrations for selected beneficial medical devices and drugs. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:979. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3595-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Edmonds SW, Wolinsky FD, Christensen AJ, Lu X, Jones MP, Roblin DW, et al. The PAADRN study: a design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2012.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cram P, Wolinsky FD, Lou Y, Edmonds SW, Hall SF, Roblin DW, et al. Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:3513–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3681-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pablos-Méndez A, Barr RG, Shea S. Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice. JAMA. 1998;279:222–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • Larsen ER, Mosekilde L, Foldspang A. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation prevents osteoporotic fractures in elderly community dwelling residents: a pragmatic population-based 3-year intervention study. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:370–8. https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.0301240This manuscript presents a PCT that tested the efficacy of vitamin D and calcium in more than 9000 community-dwelling residents aged more than 66 years.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Robertson L, Black C, Fluck N, Gordon S, Hollick R, Nguyen H, et al. Hip fracture incidence and mortality in chronic kidney disease: the GLOMMS-II record linkage cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020312. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020312.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Gittoes N, Gregson C, Harvey N, et al. National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2017;12:43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0324-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Adami G, Saag KG. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: 2019 concise clinical review. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1145–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-04906-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saag KG, Shane E, Boonen S, Marín F, Donley DW, Taylor KA, et al. Teriparatide or alendronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2028–39. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa071408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saag KG, Wagman RB, Geusens P, Adachi JD, Messina OD, Emkey R, et al. Denosumab versus risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, non-inferiority study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:445–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30075-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen S, Levy RM, Keller M, Boling E, Emkey RD, Greenwald M, et al. Risedronate therapy prevents corticosteroid-induced bone loss: a twelve-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:2309–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199911)42:11<2309::AID-ANR8>3.0.CO;2-K.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. •• Colman EG. The Food and Drug Administration’s osteoporosis guidance document: past, present, and future. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1125–8. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.6.1125The Food and Drug Administration guidance for the design of clinical trials in osteoporosis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street South, Faculty Office Tower 820D, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Giovanni Adami, Kenneth G. Saag & Maria I. Danila

  2. Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Pz Scuro 10, 37135, Verona, Italy

    Giovanni Adami

Authors
  1. Giovanni Adami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth G. Saag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria I. Danila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth G. Saag.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Giovanni Adami, Kenneth G. Saag, and Maria I. Danila declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Quality of Care in Osteoporosis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adami, G., Saag, K.G. & Danila, M.I. Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 17, 521–526 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-019-00551-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-019-00551-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation