Cargando…
Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8596935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34789314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05782-9 |
_version_ | 1784600500230946816 |
---|---|
author | Rogers, Amy Flynn, Angela Mackenzie, Isla S. McConnachie, Lewis Barr, Rebecca Flynn, Robert W. V. Morant, Steve MacDonald, Thomas M. Doney, Alexander |
author_facet | Rogers, Amy Flynn, Angela Mackenzie, Isla S. McConnachie, Lewis Barr, Rebecca Flynn, Robert W. V. Morant, Steve MacDonald, Thomas M. Doney, Alexander |
author_sort | Rogers, Amy |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies’ effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of two years. A primary intention-to-treat time-to-event analysis will be used to estimate the relative effect of the two policies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 5, 26 August 2021). The results will be disseminated widely in peer reviewed journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46635087. Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8596935 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85969352021-11-17 Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension Rogers, Amy Flynn, Angela Mackenzie, Isla S. McConnachie, Lewis Barr, Rebecca Flynn, Robert W. V. Morant, Steve MacDonald, Thomas M. Doney, Alexander Trials Study Protocol INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies’ effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of two years. A primary intention-to-treat time-to-event analysis will be used to estimate the relative effect of the two policies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 5, 26 August 2021). The results will be disseminated widely in peer reviewed journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46635087. Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment). BioMed Central 2021-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8596935/ /pubmed/34789314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05782-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Rogers, Amy Flynn, Angela Mackenzie, Isla S. McConnachie, Lewis Barr, Rebecca Flynn, Robert W. V. Morant, Steve MacDonald, Thomas M. Doney, Alexander Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title | Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title_full | Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title_fullStr | Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title_short | Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
title_sort | evaluating diuretics in normal care (evidence): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8596935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34789314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05782-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rogersamy evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT flynnangela evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT mackenzieislas evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT mcconnachielewis evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT barrrebecca evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT flynnrobertwv evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT morantsteve evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT macdonaldthomasm evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension AT doneyalexander evaluatingdiureticsinnormalcareevidenceprotocolofaclusterrandomisedcontrolledequivalencetrialofprescribingpolicytocomparetheeffectivenessofthiazidetypediureticsinhypertension |