Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Pragmatic Investigation of optimaL Oxygen Targets (PILOT) clinical trial
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Mechanical ventilation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients universally involves titration of the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2). However, the optimal SpO2 target remains unknown. Methods and analysis
The Pragmatic Investigation of optimaL Oxygen Targets (PILOT) trial is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, cluster-crossover trial being conducted in the emergency department (ED) and medical ICU at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. PILOT compares use of a lower SpO2 target (target 90% and goal range: 88%–92%), an intermediate SpO2 target (target 94% and goal range: 92%–96%) and a higher SpO2 target (target 98% and goal range: 96%–100%). The study units are assigned to a single SpO2 target (cluster-level allocation) for each 2-month study block, and the assigned SpO2 target switches every 2 months in a randomly generated sequence (cluster-level crossover). The primary outcome is ventilator-free days (VFDs) to study day 28, defined as the number of days alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation from the final receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation through 28 days after enrolment. Ethics and dissemination
The trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. Trial registration number
The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 25 May 2018 prior to initiation of patient enrolment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03537937).
SUBMITTER: Semler M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557284 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) primarily affects the lungs and lower airways and may present as hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for supportive treatment. Here, supplemental oxygen remains essential for COVID-19 patient management, but the optimal dosage is not defined. We hypothesize that targeting an arterial partial pressure of oxygen of 8 kPa throughout ICU admission is superior to targeting 12 kPa.MethodsThe Handling Oxygenation Targets in ICU patients with COVID-19 (HOT-COVID) trial, is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group trial comparing a lower oxygenation target versus a higher oxygenation target in adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome is days alive without life-support (use of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy or vasoactive therapy) at day 90. Secondary outcomes are 90-day and 1-year mortality, serious adverse events in the ICU and days alive and out of hospital in the 90-day period, health-related quality-of-life at 1 year, and health economic analyses. One-year follow-up of cognitive and pulmonary function is planned in a subgroup of Danish patients. We will include 780 patients to detect or reject an absolute increase in days alive without life-support of 7 days with an α of 5% and a β of 20%. An interim analysis is planned after 90-day follow-up of 390 patients.ConclusionsThe HOT-COVID trial will provide patient-important data on the effect of two oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia. This protocol paper describes the background, design and statistical analysis plan for the trial.
| S-EPMC8441913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60-65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years.Methods and analysisOVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums.Trial registration numberNCT03431181.
| S-EPMC7668371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) is a paper-based labour monitoring tool designed to facilitate the implementation of WHO's latest guidelines for effective, respectful care during labour and childbirth. Implementing the LCG into routine intrapartum care requires a strategy that improves healthcare provider practices during labour and childbirth. Such a strategy might optimize the use of Caesarean section (CS), along with potential benefits on the use of other obstetric interventions, maternal and perinatal health outcomes, and women's experience of care. However, the effects of a strategy to implement the LCG have not been evaluated in a randomised trial. This study aims to: (1) develop and optimise a strategy for implementing the LCG (formative phase); and (2) To evaluate the implementation of the LCG strategy compared with usual care (trial phase).MethodsIn the formative phase, we will co-design the LCG strategy with key stakeholders informed by facility assessments and provider surveys, which will be field tested in one hospital. The LCG strategy includes a LCG training program, ongoing supportive supervision from senior clinical staff, and audit and feedback using the Robson Classification. We will then conduct a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial in four public hospitals in India, to evaluate the effect of the LCG strategy intervention compared to usual care (simplified WHO partograph). The primary outcome is the CS rate in nulliparous women with singleton, term, cephalic pregnancies in spontaneous labour (Robson Group 1). Secondary outcomes include clinical and process of care outcomes, as well as women's experience of care outcomes. We will also conduct a process evaluation during the trial, using standardized facility assessments, in-depth interviews and surveys with providers, audits of completed LCGs, labour ward observations and document reviews. An economic evaluation will consider implementation costs and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionFindings of this trial will guide clinicians, administrators and policymakers on how to effectively implement the LCG, and what (if any) effects the LCG strategy has on process of care, health and experience outcomes. The trial findings will inform the rollout of LCG internationally.Trial registrationCTRI/2021/01/030695 (Protocol version 1.4, 25 April 2022).
| S-EPMC9862839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid accumulation frequently coexists with acute kidney injury (AKI) and is associated with increased risk for AKI progression and mortality. Among septic shock patients, restricted use of resuscitation fluid has been reported to reduce the risk of worsening of AKI. Restrictive fluid therapy, however, has not been studied in the setting of established AKI. Here, we present the protocol and statistical analysis plan of the REstricted fluid therapy VERsus Standard trEatment in Acute Kidney Injury-the REVERSE-AKI trial that compares a restrictive fluid therapy regimen to standard therapy in critically ill patients with AKI. METHODS:REVERSE-AKI is an investigator-initiated, multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled, feasibility pilot trial conducted in seven ICUs in five countries. We aim to randomize 100 critically ill patients with AKI to a restrictive fluid treatment regimen vs standard management. In the restrictive fluid therapy regimen, the daily fluid balance target is neutral or negative. The primary outcome is the cumulative fluid balance assessed after 72 hours from randomization. Secondary outcomes include safety, feasibility, duration, and severity of AKI, and outcome at 90 days (mortality and dialysis dependence). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first multinational trial investigating the feasibility and safety of a restrictive fluid therapy regimen in critically ill patients with AKI. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinical.trials.gov NCT03251131.
| S-EPMC7384021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Cochrane review on the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke suggests intensity of therapy is a key predictor for outcome. Current aphasia services cannot provide intervention at the intensity observed within trial contexts because of resource limitations. Telerehabilitation could widen access to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in geographically remote contexts and reduce the time spent on travel by the therapist and patient. The current academic literature within this field is in its infancy, with few trials of speech and language therapy (SLT) delivered by videoconference. Our pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will explore feasibility aspects and effectiveness of telerehabilitation for aphasia in addition to standard SLT. METHOD/DESIGN:Our study is a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial, where participants will be randomized to a telerehabilitation group or a control group. Both groups receive standard SLT (usual care) but the telerehabilitation group receives an additional 5 h of telerehabilitation per week over 4 weeks through videoconference. This additional telerehabilitation focuses on spoken language with an emphasis on word naming. We aim to include 40 patients in each group, with inclusion criteria being aphasia any time post stroke. Participants will be assessed blindly at pre-randomization (baseline), and 4 weeks and 4 months after randomization. The primary endpoint is naming ability 3 months after the completed intervention, measured by the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NGA) naming subtest. Secondary endpoints include other subtests of the NGA, the VAST (Verb and Sentence Test) subtest sentence production, Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) and the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQOL-39). Experiences of patients and SLPs with telerehabilitation are assessed using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Statistical between group comparisons will be in line with an intention-to-treat analysis. DISCUSSION:This pilot RCT of intensive language training by videoconference will contribute new scientific evidence to the field of aphasia telerehabilitation. Here, we describe our trial which will explore the feasibility of telerehabilitation for aphasia as an intervention, our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures and proposed analyses. Our trial will provide information for the development and delivery of future definitive RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02768922 . Registered on 11 May 2016. Last updated on 17 November 2017.
| S-EPMC5880095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough acupuncture has been recommended for alleviating cancer pain by clinical guidelines, the level of the supporting evidence needs to be improved. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial (pRCT) in a hospital setting would provide real-world assessments of the overall clinical effects of acupuncture. This pilot trial aims to explore the feasibility and provide data for sample size calculations for a pRCT evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy to routine medical care for cancer pain.Methods and analysisThirty patients with cancer admitted to the oncology department with moderate or severe pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised at a ratio of 1:1 to the adjunctive acupuncture group or a control group which receives routine pain management without acupuncture. The standardised section of the acupuncture protocol will be developed based on the results of reviews of the literature, recommendations in clinical guidelines and interviews with clinical experts. The acupuncturist will be allowed to tailor the protocol according to the individual situation of each participant. Primary outcomes relevant to the feasibility of conducting a fully powered trial include: numbers and proportions of participants recruited, screened, consented and randomised; numbers and reasons for withdrawals and dropouts; numbers and types of adverse events; feasibility of implementing the trial procedures; evaluation of the comprehensiveness and ease-of-use of the case report form. Secondary outcomes are clinical measurements of the effectiveness of the treatment that are intended for use in the full-scale trial. Analysis of feasibility will be descriptive and pain intensity measures will be analysed using mixed-effects regression.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (approval no: Z2017-184-01) and RMIT University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference no: 21361). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, and trial participants will be informed via email and/or phone calls.Trial registration numberChiCTR1800017023.
| S-EPMC6629396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStudies finding perioperative hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse patient outcomes in surgical procedures spurred the development of blood glucose guidelines at many institutions. In this trial, we will assess the implementation of a clinical decision support tool that is integrated into the intraoperative portion of our electronic health record and provides real-time best practice recommendations for intraoperative insulin dosing in surgical patients at high risk for hyperglycaemia.Methods and designWe will assess this intervention using a sequential and repeated cross-over design at the institutional level with periods of time for wash-out, control and study intervention. The unit of analysis will be the surgical case. The primary outcome will be the frequency of hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L)) at first postoperative anaesthesia care unit measurement. There are several prespecified secondary analyses focused on perioperative glycaemic control.DiscussionThis protocol and statistical analysis plan describes the methodology, primary and secondary analyses. The PeRiOperative Glucose PRAgMatic (PROGRAM) trial was approved by the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA (IRB, 220991). The study results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national scientific conferences. The results of PROGRAM trial will inform best practice for perioperative standardised insulin administration in surgical patients at high risk of hyperglycaemia.Trial registration numberNCT05426096.
| S-EPMC10450072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute gastroenteritis is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children in North America. Oral-rehydration therapy is recommended for children with mild-to-moderate dehydration, but children who present with vomiting are frequently offered intravenous rehydration in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies have demonstrated that the anti-emetic ondansetron can reduce vomiting, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization when administered in the ED to children with dehydration. However, there is little evidence of additional benefit from prescribing ondansetron beyond the initial ED dose. Moreover, repeat dosing may increase the frequency of diarrhea. Despite the lack of evidence and potential adverse side effects, many physicians across North America provide multiple doses of ondansetron to be taken following ED disposition. Thus, the Multi-Dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis (DOSE-AGE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing multiple doses of ondansetron to treat acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. This article specifies the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the DOSE-AGE trial and was submitted before the outcomes of the study were available for analysis.Methods/designThe DOSE-AGE study is a phase III, 6-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether participants who are prescribed multiple doses of oral ondansetron to administer, as needed, following their ED visit have a lower incidence of experiencing moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, as measured by the Modified Vesikari Scale score, compared with a placebo. To assess safety, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the frequency and maximum number of diarrheal episodes following ED disposition, and the occurrence of palpitations, pre-syncope/syncope, chest pain, arrhythmias, and serious adverse events. For the secondary outcomes, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the individual elements of the Modified Vesikari Scale score and caregiver satisfaction with the therapy.DiscussionThe DOSE-AGE trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of multiple doses of oral ondansetron, taken as needed, following an initial ED dose in children with acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. The data from the DOSE-AGE trial will be analyzed using this SAP. This will reduce the risk of producing data-driven results and bias in our reported outcomes. The DOSE-AGE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 22, 2019.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03851835 . Registered on 22 February 2019.
| S-EPMC7445935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAntibiotics are time-critical in the management of sepsis. When infectious organisms are unknown, patients are treated with empiric antibiotics to include coverage for gram-negative organisms, such as antipseudomonal cephalosporins and penicillins. However, in observational studies, some antipseudomonal cephalosporins (eg, cefepime) are associated with neurologic dysfunction while the most common antipseudomonal penicillin (piperacillin-tazobactam) is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). No randomised control trials have compared these regimens. This manuscript describes the protocol and analysis plan for a trial designed to compare the effects of antipseudomonal cephalosporins and antipseudomonal penicillins among acutely ill patients receiving empiric antibiotics.Methods and analysisThe Antibiotic Choice On ReNal outcomes trial is a prospective, single-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The trial will enrol 2500 acutely ill adults receiving gram-negative coverage for treatment of infection. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to receive cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam on first order entry of a broad-spectrum antibiotic covering gram-negative organisms. The primary outcome is the highest stage of AKI and death occurring between enrolment and 14 days after enrolment. This will be compared between patients randomised to cefepime and randomised to piperacillin-tazobactam using an unadjusted proportional odds regression model. The secondary outcomes are major adverse kidney events through day 14 and number of days alive and free of delirium and coma in 14 days after enrolment. Enrolment began on 10 November 2021 and is expected to be completed in December 2022.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center institutional review board (IRB#210591) with a waiver of informed consent. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05094154.
| S-EPMC10008324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pulmonary dysfunction complicates cardiac surgery that includes cardiopulmonary bypass. The pulmonary protection trial evaluates effect of pulmonary perfusion on pulmonary function in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This paper presents the statistical plan for the main publication to avoid risk of outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results as an update to the published design and method for the trial. RESULTS:The pulmonary protection trial is a randomized, parallel group clinical trial that assesses the effect of pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or Custodiol™ HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) solution versus no pulmonary perfusion in 90 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Patients, the statistician, and the conclusion drawers are blinded to intervention allocation. The primary outcome is the oxygenation index from 10 to 15 minutes after the end of cardiopulmonary bypass until 24 hours thereafter. Secondary outcome measures are oral tracheal intubation time, days alive outside the intensive care unit, days alive outside the hospital, and 30- and 90-day mortality, and one or more of the following selected serious adverse events: pneumothorax or pleural effusion requiring drainage, major bleeding, reoperation, severe infection, cerebral event, hyperkaliemia, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, renal replacement therapy, and readmission for a respiratory-related problem. CONCLUSIONS:The pulmonary protection trial investigates the effect of pulmonary perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. A preserved oxygenation index following pulmonary perfusion may indicate an effect and inspire to a multicenter confirmatory trial to assess a more clinically relevant outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01614951, registered on 6 June 2012.
| S-EPMC4307213 | biostudies-literature