Establishing Clinical Utility of a New Diagnostic Test for Rheumatology Patients

NCT ID: NCT04266860

Last Updated: 2020-09-16

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

166 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-03-01

Study Completion Date

2013-03-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study will collect high-quality randomized controlled data from a nationally representative sample of practicing rheumatologists to determine how they currently manage patients with SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus) and how the results of DxTerity's IFN-1 (interferon type I) test change clinical decision making.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

This study will collect high-quality randomized controlled data from a nationally representative sample of practicing rheumatologists to determine how they currently manage patients with SLE and how the results of the IFN-1 test change clinical decision making. Data from this study will better illuminate the clinical use cases in which the IFN-1 test has the most significant impact on clinical decision making (and thus the largest clinical utility) and the associated physician characteristics (e.g., age, practice setting, training) associated with test adoption.

This study leverages simulated patient cases, called Clinical Performance and Value vignettes (CPVs), in a proven methodology to rapidly measure physician care decisions. CPVs are a unique and scalable tool that standardizes practice measurement by having all providers care for the same (virtual) patients. With all providers caring for the same patients, the CPVs generate unbiased data that yields powerful insights into clinical decision making and how these decisions change with the introduction of a new product or solution. CPVs have been validated and used effectively in rheumatology. Data from the CPVs can quickly demonstrate the clinical utility of a solution, be published in peer-reviewed literature, inform marketing strategies and positively impact coverage and reimbursement decisions.

The study is a prospective cohort trial with six steps:

1. Enrollment: The study will enroll an estimated 166 practicing rheumatologists who practice in the U.S. and are determined to be eligible by an eligibility screener.
2. Provider survey: Once providers are enrolled in the study, they will be asked to complete a questionnaire describing their practice and professional background.
3. Randomization: The 166 rheumatologists will be randomized into equally-sized control and intervention arms.
4. CPVs (First Round): Physicians will complete three randomly-assigned CPV patient simulations. Cases will be identical across the intervention and control arms. All interactive cases are presented on an online platform, and are accessible via unique weblinks and any internet-connected computer.
5. Intervention education: Intervention-arm rheumatologists will receive educational materials describing the clinical validation and use cases of the IFN-1 test. This material will replicate what physicians would receive as part of an actual marketing push introducing them to the IFN-1 test. These materials may be comprised of a slide deck, fact sheet, webinar, and/or case studies.
6. CPVs (Second Round): Physicians will then complete three additional CPV patient simulations in random order. Cases will be identical across the intervention and control arms, except that the intervention arm will receive IFN-1 test results at an appropriate point in each simulated case in the post-intervention round. Control arm physicians will continue to have access to standard of care diagnostic tools only.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Lupus Nephritis Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

The study will enroll practicing rheumatologists in the US, who will be randomly assigned to either an intervention or control arm.

All eligible and consented participants will complete two rounds of three patient simulations.

The intervention arm only will receive educational material about the DxTerity test in between these two rounds, and be provided simulated DxTerity test results in the second round of simulated cases.
Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Experimental

Experimental-arm providers will complete two rounds of three simulated patient cases (CPVs) with two additions described in the next column:

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Experimental - Test Results and Education

Intervention Type OTHER

First, these providers will receive educational materials (e.g. a slide deck, mock test result and one-page fact sheet) meant to mimic what physicians will receive in the real-world market as they learn about the DxTerity test.

Second, within each of their second-round cases, intervention-arm physicians only will receive simulated test results from the DxTerity test at the clinically-appropriate point in each case.

Control

These providers will complete two rounds of three simulated patient cases (CPVs) only.

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Experimental - Test Results and Education

First, these providers will receive educational materials (e.g. a slide deck, mock test result and one-page fact sheet) meant to mimic what physicians will receive in the real-world market as they learn about the DxTerity test.

Second, within each of their second-round cases, intervention-arm physicians only will receive simulated test results from the DxTerity test at the clinically-appropriate point in each case.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Board-certified in rheumatology for at least two years
2. Averaging at least 20 hours per week of clinical and patient care duties over the last six months
3. Practicing in the U.S.
4. English speaking
5. Access to the internet
6. Informed, signed and voluntarily consented to be in the study

Exclusion Criteria

1. Non-English speaking
2. Practicing in an academic setting
3. Unable to access the internet
4. Not practicing in the U.S.
5. Not averaging at least 20 hours per week of clinical or patient care duties over the last six months
6. Do not voluntarily consent to be in the study
Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

DxTerity Diagnostics

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

Qure Healthcare, LLC

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

John Peabody, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

President, QURE Healthcare

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

QURE Healthcare

San Francisco, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Burgon TB, Cox-Chapman J, Czarnecki C, Kropp R, Guerriere R, Paculdo D, Peabody JW. Engaging Primary Care Providers to Reduce Unwanted Clinical Variation and Support ACO Cost and Quality Goals: A Unique Provider-Payer Collaboration. Popul Health Manag. 2019 Aug;22(4):321-329. doi: 10.1089/pop.2018.0111. Epub 2018 Oct 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30328782 (View on PubMed)

Peabody J, Martin M, DeMaria L, Florentino J, Paculdo D, Paul M, Vanzo R, Wassman ER, Burgon T. Clinical Utility of a Comprehensive, Whole Genome CMA Testing Platform in Pediatrics: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Simulated Patients in Physician Practices. PLoS One. 2016 Dec 30;11(12):e0169064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169064. eCollection 2016.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28036350 (View on PubMed)

Peabody JW, Strand V, Shimkhada R, Lee R, Chernoff D. Impact of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity test on clinical practice. PLoS One. 2013 May 7;8(5):e63215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063215. Print 2013.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23667587 (View on PubMed)

Solon O, Woo K, Quimbo SA, Shimkhada R, Florentino J, Peabody JW. A novel method for measuring health care system performance: experience from QIDS in the Philippines. Health Policy Plan. 2009 May;24(3):167-74. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czp003. Epub 2009 Feb 18.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19224955 (View on PubMed)

DeMaria L, Acelajado MC, Luck J, Ta H, Chernoff D, Florentino J, Peabody JW. Variations and practice in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: quality and cost of care. J Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Mar;20(2):79-86. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000000076.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24561410 (View on PubMed)

Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Jain S, Hansen J, Spell M, Lee M. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):771-80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00008.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15545677 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

01DXT2019

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Lupus Nephritis
NCT06231303 NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Centrally Acting ACE Inhibition in SLE
NCT04486118 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING PHASE2