Dataset Information

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing perioperative intravenous insulin, GIK or GLP-1 treatment in diabetes-PILGRIM trial.

ABSTRACT: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with poor outcome after surgery. The prevalence of DM in hospitalised patients is up to 40%, meaning that the anaesthesiologist will encounter a patient with DM in the operating room on a daily basis. Despite an abundance of published glucose lowering protocols and the known negative outcomes associated with perioperative hyperglycaemia in DM, there is no evidence regarding the optimal intraoperative glucose lowering treatment. In addition, protocol adherence is usually low and protocol targets are not simply met. Recently, incretins have been introduced to lower blood glucose. The main hormone of the incretin system is glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). GLP-1 increases insulin and decreases glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, resulting in glucose lowering action with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia. We set out to determine the optimal intraoperative treatment algorithm to lower glucose in patients with DM type 2 undergoing non-cardiac surgery, comparing intraoperative glucose-insulin-potassium infusion (GIK), insulin bolus regimen (BR) and GPL-1 (liragludite, LG) treatment.This is a multicentre randomised open label trial in patients with DM type 2 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Patients are randomly assigned to one of three study arms; intraoperative glucose-insulin-potassium infusion (GIK), intraoperative sliding-scale insulin boluses (BR) or GPL-1 pre-treatment with liraglutide (LG). Capillary glucose will be measured every hour. If necessary, in all study arms glucose will be adjusted with an intravenous bolus of insulin. Researchers, care givers and patients will not be blinded for the assigned treatment. The main outcome measure is the difference in median glucose between the three study arms at 1 hour postoperatively. We will include 315 patients, which gives us a 90% power to detect a 1 mmol l(-1) difference in glucose between the study arms.The PILGRIM trial started in January 2014 and will provide relevant information on the perioperative use of GLP-1 agonists and the optimal intraoperative treatment algorithm in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02036372.

SUBMITTER: Polderman JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4240889 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing perioperative intravenous insulin, GIK or GLP-1 treatment in diabetes-PILGRIM trial.

Polderman Jorinde A W JA Houweling Peter L PL Hollmann Markus W MW DeVries J Hans JH Preckel Benedikt B Hermanides Jeroen J

BMC anesthesiology 20141014

<h4>Background</h4>Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with poor outcome after surgery. The prevalence of DM in hospitalised patients is up to 40%, meaning that the anaesthesiologist will encounter a patient with DM in the operating room on a daily basis. Despite an abundance of published glucose lowering protocols and the known negative outcomes associated with perioperative hyperglycaemia in DM, there is no evidence regarding the optimal intraoperative glucose lowering treatment. In addition, ...[more]

PMID: 25419179

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionBoth regional analgesia and intravenous analgesia are frequently used perioperatively for patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI). Nevertheless, the comparison of perioperative effect of regional and intravenous analgesia has not yet been thoroughly illustrated. This study will comprehensively compare patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) as two different perioperative analgesia approaches for patients with CLI. It investigates their effects on analgesia, reperfusion and the quality of recovery perioperatively, also aims to provide clinical evidence to those non-surgical patients with non-reconstructable arteries.Methods and analysisThis trial is a randomised, single-centre, open-label, parallel trial with target sample size of 52 in total. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to the PCRA group (group R) or the PCIA group (group I) after admission. Participants in group R will receive ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic catheterisation, followed by continuous PCRA infusion (0.2% ropivacaine 15 mL as loading dose, 8 mL/hour as background with a patient-controlled bolus of 6 mL). Participants in group I will receive PCIA (morphine is given in boluses of 1 mg as needed, background infusion at 1 mg/hour). Data will be collected at baseline (T0), 2 hours before revascularisation treatment (T1) and 2 hours before discharge (T2). The primary outcomes include the Numerical Rating Scale pain score at T1 and T2. The secondary outcomes include the perioperative transcutaneous oxygen pressure, the Tissue Haemoglobin Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at T1 and T2; the Patient Global Impression of Change and patient satisfaction at T1 and T2; the perioperative cumulative morphine consumption, the length of postoperative hospital stay and adverse events.Ethics and disseminationThis study received authorisation from the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital on 21 March 2017 (approval no. ZS-1289X). Study findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences or publications in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000029298).Protocol versionV.4CP.B2 (15 June 2020).

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative pain remains incompletely controlled for decades. Recently, multimodal analgesia is emerging as a potential approach in the management of postoperative pain. Therein, S(+)-ketamine is appealing as an adjuvant drug in multimodal analgesia due to its unique pharmacological advantages. This pragmatic clinical trial (SAFE-SK-A trial) is designed to investigate the analgesic effect and safety of S(+)-ketamine for acute postoperative pain in adults and explore the optimal strategy of perioperative intravenous S(+)-ketamine in a real-world setting.Methods and analysisThis multicentre, randomised, open-label, positive-controlled, pragmatic clinical trial (SAFE-SK-A study) is planned to conduct in 80 centres from China and recruit a total of 12 000 adult participants undergoing a surgical procedure under general anaesthesia. Patient recruitment started in June 2021 and will end in June 2022. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 2:1 to either receive perioperative intravenous S(+)-ketamine plus conventional anaesthesia or conventional anaesthesia only. Given the pragmatic nature of the study, no specific restriction as to the administration dosage, route, time, synergistic regimen or basic analgesics. Primary endpoints are the area under the broken line of Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain intensity and the total opioid consumption within 48 hours postoperative. Secondary endpoints are postoperative NRS scores, the anaesthesia recovery time, time of first rescue analgesia, the incidence of rescue analgesia, the incidence of postoperative delirium, patient questionnaire for effect, changes from baseline in cognitive function and anxiety and depression, as well as the adverse events and pharmacoeconomic outcomes. The general linear model will be used for the primary endpoint, and appropriate methods will be used for the secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the local Institutional Review Board (S2021-026-02) and conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. Results of this trial will be publicly disclosed and published in scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT04837170; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundMany people with diabetes have suboptimal glycaemic control due to not being adherent to their treatment regimen. Behavioural economic theory suggests that the lack of adherence results from the disconnect between the timing of when costs and benefits accrue. One strategy to address this discontinuity is to offer patients a near-term benefit, such as a financial reward. Whereas there is evidence that rewards can improve treatment adherence and sometimes health outcomes, further research is needed to determine whether rewards are more effective when targeting processes or intermediary health outcomes. In the Trial to Incentivise Adherence for Diabetes (TRIAD) we test whether adding financial incentives to usual care can improve HbA1c levels among people with diabetes and whether the financial incentives work better when targeting processes (adherence to blood glucose testing, medication, and daily physical activity) or the primary intermediary health outcome of self-monitored blood glucose within an acceptable range.Methods/designTRIAD is a randomised, controlled, open-label, single-centre superiority trial with three parallel arms. A total of 240 patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8%) from a polyclinic in Singapore are block-randomised (blocking factor: current vs. new glucometer users) into three arms, namely (1) usual care (UC) only, (2) UC with process incentive and (3) UC with outcome incentive, in a 2:3:3 ratio. Masking the arm allocation will be precluded by the behavioural nature of the intervention but blocking size will not be disclosed to protect concealment. The primary outcome (change in HbA1c level at month 6) will be measured by a laboratory that is independent from the study team. Secondary outcomes (at month 6) include the number of blood glucose testing days, glucose readings within the normal range (between 4 to 7 mmol/L), medication-adherent days, physically active days, and average incentives earned and time spent administrating the incentives.DiscussionThis study will provide evidence on whether financial incentives can cost-effectively improve glycaemic control. It will also provide evidence on the benefit incidence of interventions involving financial incentives. By comparing process to outcome incentives, this study will inform the design of future incentive strategies in chronic disease management and beyond.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registry, ID: NCT02224417 . Registered on 22 August 2014.

Project description:IntroductionPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used vascular access device in hospitalised patients. Yet PIVCs may be complicated by local or systemic infections leading to increased healthcare costs. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings may help reduce PIVC-related infectious complications but have not yet been evaluated. We hypothesise an impregnated CHG transparent dressing, in comparison to standard polyurethane dressing, will be safe, effective and cost-effective in protecting against PIVC-related infectious complications and phlebitis.Methods and analysisThe ProP trial is a multicentre, superiority, randomised clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot, conducted across three centres in Australia and France. Patients (adults and children aged ≥6 years) requiring one PIVC for ≥48 hours are eligible. We will exclude patients with emergent PIVCs, known CHG allergy, skin injury at site of insertion or previous trial enrolment. Patients will be randomised to 3M Tegaderm Antimicrobial IV Advanced Securement dressing or standard care group. For the internal pilot, 300 patients will be enrolled to test protocol feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, missing data and satisfaction of participants and staff), primary endpoint for internal pilot, assessed by independent data safety monitoring committee. Clinical outcomes will not be reviewed. Following feasibility assessment, the remaining 2624 (1312 per trial arm) patients will be enrolled following the same methods. The primary endpoint is a composite of catheter-related infectious complications and phlebitis. Recruitment began on 3 May 2023.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by Ouest I ethic committee in France and by The Queensland Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia. The findings will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05741866.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent interventions for haemorrhoidal disease include traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH) and stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) surgery. However, uncertainty remains as to how they compare from a clinical, quality of life (QoL) and economic perspective. The study is therefore designed to determine whether SH is more effective and more cost-effective, compared with TH.Methods/designeTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy for Haemorrhoidal Disease) is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Currently, 29 secondary care centres are open to recruitment. Patients, aged 18 year or older, with circumferential haemorrhoids grade II to IV, are eligible to take part. The primary clinical and economic outcomes are QoL profile (area under the curve derived from the EuroQol Group's 5 Dimension Health Status Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at all assessment points) and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) based on the responses to the EQ-5D at 24 months. The secondary outcomes include a comparison of the SF-36 scores, pain and symptoms sub-domains, disease recurrence, complication rates and direct and indirect costs to the National Health Service (NHS). A sample size of n =338 per group has been calculated to provide 90% power to detect a difference in the mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.25 standard deviations derived from EQ-5D score measurements, with a two-sided significance level of 5%. Allowing for non-response, 400 participants will be randomised per group. Randomisation will utilise a minimisation algorithm that incorporates centre, grade of haemorrhoidal disease, baseline EQ-5D score and gender. Blinding of participants and outcome assessors is not attempted.DiscussionThis is one of the largest trials of its kind. In the United Kingdom alone, 29,000 operations for haemorrhoidal disease are done annually. The trial is therefore designed to give robust evidence on which clinicians and health service managers can base management decisions and, more importantly, patients can make informed choices.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723 (assigned 8 March 2010).

Project description:IntroductionManual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes.Methods and analysisThis open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ?25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0?mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users.Ethics and disseminationThe study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing perioperative intravenous insulin, GIK or GLP-1 treatment in diabetes-PILGRIM trial.

Publications

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing perioperative intravenous insulin, GIK or GLP-1 treatment in diabetes-PILGRIM trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets