The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Independent of efficacy, information on safety of surgical procedures is essential for informed choices. We seek to develop standardized methodology for describing the safety of spinal operations and apply these methods to study lumbar surgery. We present a conceptual model for evaluating the safety of spine surgery and describe development of tools to measure principal components of this model: (1) specifying outcome by explicit criteria for adverse event definition, mode of ascertainment, cause, severity, or preventability, and (2) quantitatively measuring predictors such as patient factors, comorbidity, severity of degenerative spine disease, and invasiveness of spine surgery. We created operational definitions for 176 adverse occurrences and established multiple mechanisms for reporting them. We developed new methods to quantify the severity of adverse occurrences, degeneration of lumbar spine, and invasiveness of spinal procedures. Using kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients, we assessed agreement for the following: four reviewers independently coding etiology, preventability, and severity for 141 adverse occurrences, two observers coding lumbar spine degenerative changes in 10 selected cases, and two researchers coding invasiveness of surgery for 50 initial cases. During the first six months of prospective surveillance, rigorous daily medical record reviews identified 92.6% of the adverse occurrences we recorded, and voluntary reports by providers identified 38.5% (surgeons reported 18.3%, inpatient rounding team reported 23.1%, and conferences discussed 6.1%). Trained observers had fair agreement in classifying etiology of 141 adverse occurrences into 18 categories (kappa = 0.35), but agreement was substantial (kappa ≥ 0.61) for 4 specific categories: technical error, failure in communication, systems failure, and no error. Preventability assessment had moderate agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.44). Adverse occurrence severity rating had fair agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.33) when using a scale based on the JCAHO Sentinel Event Policy, but agreement was substantial for severity ratings on a new 11-point numerical severity scale (ICC = 0.74). There was excellent inter-rater agreement for a lumbar degenerative disease severity score (ICC = 0.98) and an index of surgery invasiveness (ICC = 0.99). Composite measures of disease severity and surgery invasiveness may allow development of risk-adjusted predictive models for adverse events in spine surgery. Standard measures of adverse events and risk adjustment may also facilitate post-marketing surveillance of spinal devices, effectiveness research, and quality improvement.

In 2013, nearly four million babies were born in the U.S., among whom 447,875 were born preterm. Approximately 30,000 of these infants were born before 28 weeks of gestation. These infants, termed Extremely Low Gestational Age Neonates (ELGANs), experience high morbidity and mortality despite modern therapies: approximately 20 % of ELGANs admitted to an NICU die before discharge, 20 % of survivors have severe, and 20 % moderate neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). New approaches are needed to improve neonatal outcomes. Recombinant erythropoietin (Epo) is a promising neuroprotective agent that is widely available, affordable, and has been used safely in neonates to stimulate erythropoiesis. There are extensive preclinical data to support its use as a neuroprotective intervention: Epo promotes normal brain maturation by increasing neurogenesis, angiogenesis, and by protecting oligodendrocytes. Epo also decreases acute brain injury following hypoxia ischemia by decreasing inflammation, oxidative and excitotoxic injury, resulting in decreased apoptosis. Despite the availability of both preclinical and safety data there has not been a definitive clinical evaluation of the benefit of Epo, and a large phase III trial is necessary to provide evidence to support potential changes in practice guidelines. We first review the preclinical data motivating further clinical trials, and then describe in detail the design of the PENUT study (Preterm Epo Neuroprotection). PENUT is a phase III study evaluating the effect of neonatal Epo treatment on the combined outcome of death or severe NDI among ELGANS. 940 subjects will be randomized to determine: 1) whether Epo decreases the combined outcome of death or NDI at 22–26 months corrected age; 2) the safety of high dose Epo administration to ELGANs; 3) whether Epo treatment decreases serial measures of circulating inflammatory mediators, and improves biomarkers of brain injury; and 4) whether Epo treatment improves brain structure at 36 weeks postmenstrual age as measured by MRI. Epo neuroprotection is an exciting new approach to preterm neuroprotection, and if efficacious, will provide a much-needed therapy for this group of vulnerable infants.