Development and implementation of PROgmatic: A clinical trial management system for pragmatic multi-centre trials,optimised for electronic data capture and patient-reported outcomes

Abstract

Background

Many clinical trials are conducted as explanatory trials, but the applicability of results from explanatory trials to clinical practice may be questioned. Pragmatic trials elucidate both benefits and harms of an intervention under conditions close to daily clinical practice. We have planned a pragmatic multi-centre trial in patients with Graves’ hyperthyroidism. However, trial management is a complicated task in pragmatic trials, due to limited interaction between participants and trial personnel.

Purpose

The aim of this project was to develop and implement PROgmatic, a fully integrated trial management system for pragmatic multi-centre trials, optimised for electronic data capture and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

Necessary tasks and logistical challenges that should be handled by PROgmatic were identified, and the system was designed and developed to handle these tasks. A combination of generic applications and custom coding was applied to develop an integrated system that met the required needs. PROgmatic features include secure web-based data entry; electronic case report forms (eCRFs); central participant registration and randomisation; automated emails linking to electronic PROs; automated reminders to participants; automated notifications to trial personnel regarding booking of trial visits, safety and compliance alerts; and monitoring of trial progress. PROgmatic underwent rigorous pilot testing, including data verification and validation, before it was released for trial management.

Results

PROgmatic was successfully implemented in the GRAves’ Selenium Supplementation (GRASS) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01611896) December 2012. The feedback from trial personnel on usability and utility has been positive, and PROgmatic has handled all intended tasks properly.

Limitations

Implementation of PROgmatic in future studies requires adaptation of the custom coding. Not all email systems accept emails with active links, and participants who use these systems therefore need to complete paper surveys.

Conclusions

PROgmatic facilitated the complex task of conducting a pragmatic multi-centre trial. The automated electronic capture of PRO data is time saving and reduces the risk of erroneous data entry. Email notifications to trial personnel combined with serially activated eCRFs that logically lead patient flow through the trial have helped making the pragmatic trial feasible. PROgmatic provides a template for other pragmatic multi-centre trials with patient-reported measures as high-priority outcomes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ware

Hamel

. Pragmatic trials – Guides to better patient care? N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1685–87.

Patsopoulos

. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011; 13: 217–24.

Treweek

Zwarenstein

. Making trials matter: Pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials 2009; 10: 37.

Watt

Cramon

Bjorner

. Selenium supplementation for patients with Graves’ hyperthyroidism (the GRASS trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013; 14: 119.

Bell

Fairclough

. Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2013; doi: 10.1177/0962280213476378 (Epub ahead of print).

Hardouin

Conroy

Sebille

. Imputation by the mean score should be avoided when validating a Patient Reported Outcomes questionnaire by a Rasch model in presence of informative missing data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 105.

Hegedüs

. Treatment of Graves’ hyperthyroidism: Evidence-based and emerging modalities. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2009; 38: 355–71.

Watt

Rasmussen

Groenvold

. Improving a newly developed patient-reported outcome for thyroid patients, using cognitive interviewing. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 1009–17.

Watt

Bjorner

Groenvold

. Establishing construct validity for the thyroid-specific patient reported outcome measure (ThyPRO): An initial examination. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 483–96.

10.

Watt

Hegedüs

Groenvold

. Validity and reliability of the novel thyroid-specific quality of life questionnaire, ThyPRO. Eur J Endocrinol 2010; 162: 161–67.

11.

Durkalski

Wenle

Dillon

Kim

. A web-based clinical trial management system for a sham-controlled multicenter clinical trial in depression. Clin Trials 2010; 7: 174–82.

12.

Musick

Robb

Burns

. Development and use of a web-based data management system for a randomized clinical trial of adolescents and young adults. Comput Inform Nurs 2011; 29: 337–43.

13.

Geyer

Myers

Vander

. Implementing a low-cost web-based clinical trial management system for community studies: A case study. Clin Trials 2011; 8: 634–44.

14.

Brandt

Deshpande

. TrialDB: A web-based Clinical Study Data Management System. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 2003: 794.

15.

Eisenstein

Collins

Cracknell

. Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs. Clin Trials 2008; 5: 75–84.

16.

Lopez-Carrero

Arriaza

Bolanos

. Internet in clinical research based on a pilot experience. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26: 234–43.

17.

Wade

Crawford

Pumford

McConnachie

. Patient reported outcome data following influenza A (H1N1p) vaccination in the 2009–2010 season: Web-based and telephone evaluation. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2011; 7: 409–20.

18.

Mackenzie

MacDonald

Shakir

. Influenza H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination: A safety surveillance feasibility study using self-reporting of serious adverse events and pregnancy outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012; 73: 801–11.