Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 4:02 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 2:56 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04875702
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2025-09-25
First Post:
2021-05-03
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Treat-to-Target Serum Urate Versus Treat-to-Avoid Symptoms in Gout
Sponsor:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Treat-to-Target Serum Urate Versus Treat-to-Avoid Symptoms in Gout: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2025-09
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
TRUST
Brief Summary:
The TRUST study is a randomized, controlled multicenter study to evaluate the management of gout by comparing two commonly used treatment strategies for gout (TTT vs TTASx) to determine the most beneficial for a patient-centered gout outcomes, as well as relevant cardiovascular-metabolic-renal endpoints.
Detailed Description:
This trial aims to answer a fundamental question in the management of gout by comparing two commonly used treatment strategies for gout (TTT vs TTASx) to determine which is most beneficial for a range of patient-centered gout outcomes, as well as relevant CV-metabolic-renal endpoints.
Designing a scientifically valid and pragmatic clinical trial involves numerous tradeoffs in study design, subject eligibility criteria, and outcome measurement. We have come together as primary care physicians and rheumatologists to consider several alternative designs. We first considered the target study population. Since most rheumatologists believe that the TTT approach is superior, it would be difficult to recruit from rheumatology practices. Thus, we aimed to design a trial that would be feasible to conduct in primary care practices, with an intervention that could primarily be run by nurses and physician assistants. This design would be pragmatic and generalizable to primary care practices outside of the setting of a randomized controlled trial. The trial also needs to incorporate the perspectives of rheumatologists, primary care clinicians, allied specialists, and patients when deciding the key issues to be addressed and how best to answer these questions.76 We convened a modified Delphi Panel (mDP) to solicit input using a formal process of voting and discussion. The Delphi Panel is a commonly used approach in health care for areas where there is less than perfect data to make decisions. It also has been used in the social sciences as a method for formalizing input from multiple parties, using voting and discussion.77,78 We selected a broadly representative group of mDP panelists from four categories of constituents who could inform the trial design: patients, nurses, primary care physicians, and rheumatologists. Two voting rounds were held, including a video conference meeting to discuss all the voting questions and re-vote on items where no consensus had been reached on the first round.
Designing a scientifically valid and pragmatic clinical trial involves numerous tradeoffs in study design, subject eligibility criteria, and outcome measurement. We have come together as primary care physicians and rheumatologists to consider several alternative designs. We first considered the target study population. Since most rheumatologists believe that the TTT approach is superior, it would be difficult to recruit from rheumatology practices. Thus, we aimed to design a trial that would be feasible to conduct in primary care practices, with an intervention that could primarily be run by nurses and physician assistants. This design would be pragmatic and generalizable to primary care practices outside of the setting of a randomized controlled trial. The trial also needs to incorporate the perspectives of rheumatologists, primary care clinicians, allied specialists, and patients when deciding the key issues to be addressed and how best to answer these questions.76 We convened a modified Delphi Panel (mDP) to solicit input using a formal process of voting and discussion. The Delphi Panel is a commonly used approach in health care for areas where there is less than perfect data to make decisions. It also has been used in the social sciences as a method for formalizing input from multiple parties, using voting and discussion.77,78 We selected a broadly representative group of mDP panelists from four categories of constituents who could inform the trial design: patients, nurses, primary care physicians, and rheumatologists. Two voting rounds were held, including a video conference meeting to discuss all the voting questions and re-vote on items where no consensus had been reached on the first round.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1U01AR080985-01A1 | NIH | None | https://reporter.nih.gov/quic… | View |