Denne side blev automatisk oversat, og nøjagtigheden af ​​oversættelsen er ikke garanteret. Der henvises til engelsk version for en kildetekst.

Regression Discontinuity Design to Evaluate of Drotrecogin Alpha Effectiveness

21. juli 2016 opdateret af: Allan J. Walkey, Boston Medical Center

Regression Discontinuity Designs to Evaluate Real-world Effectiveness: a Case Study of Drotrecogin Alpha

Many health care interventions and medications found to have benefits ("efficacy") in experimental, tightly-controlled, human research trials are later found to lack real-world health benefits ("effectiveness"). Inadequate surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure clinicians and those who monitor healthcare quality, propagating unrecognized ineffective or harmful treatments at high costs to patients and society. The failure to translate potential health benefits into realized gains, or to detect unexpected harms in healthcare delivery, stems from a lack of methods with which to robustly measure real-world (in)effectiveness. Current methods to detect changes in outcomes 'before and after' implementation may be biased by secular trends in healthcare practice and outcomes; other methods to compare outcomes for treated and untreated patients may be biased by unmeasured factors.

The current project aims to develop and demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept - the use of a quasi-experimental research method called 'regression discontinuity design (RDD)' in surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness. RDD had previously found use in the evaluation of educational programs in which students scoring below a threshold were assigned an intervention. The US Department of Education considers RDD designs to have quality similar to randomized trials.

Studieoversigt

Status

Afsluttet

Betingelser

Intervention / Behandling

Detaljeret beskrivelse

Many health care interventions and medications found to have benefits ("efficacy") in experimental, tightly-controlled, human research trials are later found to lack real-world health benefits ("effectiveness"). Inadequate surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure clinicians and those who monitor healthcare quality, propagating unrecognized ineffective or harmful treatments at high costs to patients and society. The failure to translate potential health benefits into realized gains, or to detect unexpected harms in healthcare delivery, stems from a lack of methods with which to robustly measure real-world (in)effectiveness. Current methods to detect changes in outcomes 'before and after' implementation may be biased by secular trends in healthcare practice and outcomes; other methods to compare outcomes for treated and untreated patients may be biased by unmeasured factors.

The current project aims to develop and demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept - the use of a quasi-experimental research method called 'regression discontinuity design (RDD)' in surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness. RDD had previously found use in the evaluation of educational programs in which students scoring below a threshold were assigned an intervention. The US Department of Education considers RDD designs to have quality similar to randomized trials. However, RDD has not been rigorously evaluated in the context of evaluating clinical effectiveness. RDD can be used whenever an intervention is given to patients scoring above a threshold on a continuous biomarker or risk score. This scenario often arises in clinical practice, in which thresholds are used to identify and treat 'high risk' patients. In RDD, outcomes are compared for patients just above and just below the threshold, who are similar, but receive different treatments.

The project will study the use of RDD in evaluating the real-world effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha, a medication that was recommended by the FDA to be given to critically ill patients with severe sepsis at high risk for mortality (APACHE score > 25). Drotrecogin alpha was shown to potentially have "effectiveness" using traditional methods of real-world research, but was eventually shown to not be clinically efficacious in subsequent large randomized trials. The present proposal is a 'proof-of-concept' study that will allow evaluation of effect estimates derived from RDD methods to those of gold standard, pooled randomized trial results. The demonstration of feasibility for a new research method, such as RDD, to evaluate real-world clinical effectiveness would be a major leap forward in the ability monitor for potential real world benefits and harms of new treatments.

Undersøgelsestype

Observationel

Tilmelding (Faktiske)

12492

Kontakter og lokationer

Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.

Studiesteder

    • Massachusetts
      • Boston, Massachusetts, Forenede Stater, 02118
        • Boston Medical Center

Deltagelseskriterier

Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.

Berettigelseskriterier

Aldre berettiget til at studere

  • Barn
  • Voksen
  • Ældre voksen

Tager imod sunde frivillige

Ingen

Køn, der er berettiget til at studere

Alle

Prøveudtagningsmetode

Ikke-sandsynlighedsprøve

Studiebefolkning

An International Observational Study Among Severe Sepsis Patients Treated in the Intensive Care Unit (PROGRESS severe sepsis registry).

The PROGRESS registry of severe sepsis cases is a unique resource that contains data linking APACHE scores, drotrecogin alpha administration, and hospital mortality outcomes, providing an opportunity to study RDD as a novel method of comparative effectiveness research, and compare results derived from RDD to prior studies using more traditional comparative effectiveness designs (i.e., propensity score adjustment).

Beskrivelse

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Included in PROGRESS severe sepsis registry

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None

Studieplan

Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.

Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?

Design detaljer

Hvad måler undersøgelsen?

Primære resultatmål

Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
Relative risk reduction for mortality
Tidsramme: Duration of hospitalization, on average approximately 14 days
The study will evaluate the change in the relationship between APACHE II scores and hospital mortality rate at the APACHE II threshold score of 25
Duration of hospitalization, on average approximately 14 days

Sekundære resultatmål

Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
APACHE II scores at which drotrecogin alpha was used
Tidsramme: Baseline
Evaluation of drotrecogin alpha practice patterns at APACHE II score of 25
Baseline
Change in mortality risk over time
Tidsramme: 3 years
The study will assess interaction between year and relative risk for mortality associated with drotrecogin alpha
3 years

Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere

Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.

Publikationer og nyttige links

Den person, der er ansvarlig for at indtaste oplysninger om undersøgelsen, leverer frivilligt disse publikationer. Disse kan handle om alt relateret til undersøgelsen.

Datoer for undersøgelser

Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.

Studer store datoer

Studiestart

1. december 2002

Primær færdiggørelse (Faktiske)

1. december 2005

Datoer for studieregistrering

Først indsendt

15. juli 2016

Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier

21. juli 2016

Først opslået (Skøn)

26. juli 2016

Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler

Sidste opdatering sendt (Skøn)

26. juli 2016

Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier

21. juli 2016

Sidst verificeret

1. juli 2016

Mere information

Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse

Yderligere relevante MeSH-vilkår

Andre undersøgelses-id-numre

  • H-35010

Plan for individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)

Planlægger du at dele individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)?

INGEN

IPD-planbeskrivelse

Individual participant data (IPD) is only available through consultation with the original PROGRESS registry study sponsor through https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/

Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .

Abonner