A point-of-care clinical trial comparing insulin administered using a sliding scale versus a weight-based regimen

Louis D Fiore, Mary Brophy, Ryan E Ferguson, Leonard D'Avolio, John A Hermos, Robert A Lew, Gheorghe Doros, Chester H Conrad, Joseph A Gus O'Neil Jr, Thomas P Sabin, James Kaufman, Stephen L Swartz, Elizabeth Lawler, Matthew H Liang, J Michael Gaziano, Philip W Lavori, Louis D Fiore, Mary Brophy, Ryan E Ferguson, Leonard D'Avolio, John A Hermos, Robert A Lew, Gheorghe Doros, Chester H Conrad, Joseph A Gus O'Neil Jr, Thomas P Sabin, James Kaufman, Stephen L Swartz, Elizabeth Lawler, Matthew H Liang, J Michael Gaziano, Philip W Lavori

Abstract

Background: Clinical trials are widely considered the gold standard in comparative effectiveness research (CER) but the high cost and complexity of traditional trials and concerns about generalizability to broad patient populations and general clinical practice limit their appeal. Unsuccessful implementation of CER results limits the value of even the highest quality trials. Planning for a trial comparing two standard strategies of insulin administration for hospitalized patients led us to develop a new method for a clinical trial designed to be embedded directly into the clinical care setting thereby lowering the cost, increasing the pragmatic nature of the overall trial, strengthening implementation, and creating an integrated environment of research-based care.

Purpose: We describe a novel randomized clinical trial that uses the informatics and statistics infrastructure of the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA) to illustrate one key component (called the point-of-care clinical trial - POC-CT) of a 'learning healthcare system,' and settles a clinical question of interest to the VA.

Methods: This study is an open-label, randomized trial comparing sliding scale regular insulin to a weight-based regimen for control of hyperglycemia, using the primary outcome length of stay, in non-ICU inpatients within the northeast region of the VA. All non-ICU patients who require in-hospital insulin therapy are eligible for the trial, and the VA's automated systems will be used to assess eligibility and present the possibility of randomization to the clinician at the point of care. Clinicians will indicate their approval for informed consent to be obtained by study staff. Adaptive randomization will assign up to 3000 patients, preferentially to the currently 'winning' strategy, and all care will proceed according to usual practices. Based on a Bayesian stopping rule, the study has acceptable frequentist operating characteristics (Type I error 6%, power 86%) against a 12% reduction of median length of stay from 5 to 4.4 days. The adaptive stopping rule promotes implementation of a successful treatment strategy.

Limitations: Despite clinical equipoise, individual healthcare providers may have strong treatment preferences that jeopardize the success and implementation of the trial design, leading to low rates of randomization. Unblinded treatment assignment may bias results. In addition, generalization of clinical results to other healthcare systems may be limited by differences in patient population. Generalizability of the POC-CT method depends on the level of informatics and statistics infrastructure available to a healthcare system.

Conclusions: The methods proposed will demonstrate outcome-based evaluation of control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized veterans. By institutionalizing a process of statistically sound and efficient learning, and by integrating that learning with automatic implementation of best practice, the participating VA Healthcare Systems will accelerate improvements in the effectiveness of care.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Initial order process performed by clinician
Figure 2
Figure 2
Workflow beginning when clinician has agreed to consider randomizing patient into one of two interventions
Figure 3
Figure 3
Screen shot of CPRS showing introduction of POC-CT option into the insulin options menu
Figure 4
Figure 4
Diagram representing the flow of the design In the figure above, π represents the probability of assigning the weight-based protocol to a patient
Figure 5
Figure 5
Cumulative probability of stopping the trial across interim looks; assumed median LOS with Protocols B and A are 5 and 4.4 days, respectively

References

    1. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis 1967; 20: 637–48
    1. Schwartz D, Flamant R, Lellouch J. Clinical Trials London, Academic Press, 1980
    1. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. J Am Med Assoc 2003; 290: 1624–32
    1. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 464–75
    1. Chalmers TC. Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin N Amer 1975; 59: 1035–38
    1. Baum M. New approach for recruitment into randomized clinical trials. Lancet 1993; 1: 812–13
    1. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 206–09
    1. Zwarenstein MF, Dainty KN, Quan S, et al. A cluster randomized trial evaluating electronic prescribing in an ambulatory care setting. Trials 2007; 8: 28–28
    1. Vickers AJ, Scardino PT. The clinical-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials 2009; 10: 14–14
    1. Giles FJ, Kantarjian HM, Cortes JE, et al. Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1722–27
    1. Thall PF, Wathen JK. Practical Bayesian adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 859–66
    1. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing [document on the Internet]. The Institute for Statistics and Mathematics, Vienna, 2009. Available at: (accessed 9 June 2010)
    1. American Medical Association. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Summary of Major Health Care Provisions, 2009.
    1. D’Avolio L. Electronic medical records at a crossroads; impetus for change or missed opportunity. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 302: 1109–10
    1. Baum M. Do we need informed consent? Lancet 1986; 2: 911–12
    1. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz , et al. Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2(15): i–vi, 1–132
    1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 2701–11
    1. Marco CA. Impact of detailed informed consent of research subjects’ participation: a prospective, randomized trial. J Emerg Med 2008; 34: 269–75
    1. Parvizi J, Chakravarty R, Og B, Rodriguez-Paez A. Informed consent: is it always necessary? Injury 2008; 39: 651–55
    1. Hutton JL. Are distinctive ethical principles required for cluster randomized controlled trials? Stat Med 2001; 20: 473–88
    1. Sabin JE, Mazor K, Meterko V, Goff SL, Platt R. Comparing drug effectiveness at health plans: the ethics of cluster randomized trials. Hasting Cent Rep 2008; 38: 39–48

Source: PubMed

3
订阅