Considering usual medical care in clinical trial design.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dawson L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2746285 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Considering usual medical care in clinical trial design.
Dawson Liza L Zarin Deborah A DA Emanuel Ezekiel J EJ Friedman Lawrence M LM Chaudhari Bimal B Goodman Steven N SN
PLoS medicine 20090929 9
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceIt is critically important to evaluate the effect of nonpharmacological treatments on low back pain and associated disability.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care results in better pain relief and pain-related function when compared with usual medical care alone.Design, setting, and participantsA 3-site pragmatic comparative effectiveness clinical trial using adaptive allocation was conducted from September 28, 2012, to February 13, 2016, at 2 large military medical centers in major metropolitan areas and 1 smaller hospital at a military training site. Eligible participants were active-duty US service members aged 18 to 50 years with low back pain from a musculoskeletal source.InterventionsThe intervention period was 6 weeks. Usual medical care included self-care, medications, physical therapy, and pain clinic referral. Chiropractic care included spinal manipulative therapy in the low back and adjacent regions and additional therapeutic procedures such as rehabilitative exercise, cryotherapy, superficial heat, and other manual therapies.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were low back pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [no low back pain] to 10 [worst possible low back pain]) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; scores ranging from 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included perceived improvement, satisfaction (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [not at all satisfied] to 10 [extremely satisfied]), and medication use. The coprimary outcomes were modeled with linear mixed-effects regression over baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, and 12.ResultsOf the 806 screened patients who were recruited through either clinician referrals or self-referrals, 750 were enrolled (250 at each site). The mean (SD) participant age was 30.9 (8.7) years, 175 participants (23.3%) were female, and 243 participants (32.4%) were nonwhite. Statistically significant site × time × group interactions were found in all models. Adjusted mean differences in scores at week 6 were statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care compared with usual medical care alone overall for low back pain intensity (mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.7), disability (mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to -1.2), and satisfaction (mean difference, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.8) as well as at each site. Adjusted odd ratios at week 6 were also statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care overall for perceived improvement (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.25) and self-reported pain medication use (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No serious related adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceChiropractic care, when added to usual medical care, resulted in moderate short-term improvements in low back pain intensity and disability in active-duty military personnel. This trial provides additional support for the inclusion of chiropractic care as a component of multidisciplinary health care for low back pain, as currently recommended in existing guidelines. However, study limitations illustrate that further research is needed to understand longer-term outcomes as well as how patient heterogeneity and intervention variations affect patient responses to chiropractic care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01692275.
| S-EPMC6324527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Value of Information (VOI) analyses calculate the economic value that could be generated by obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty in a health economic decision model. VOI has been suggested as a tool for research prioritisation and trial design as it can highlight economically valuable avenues for future research. Recent methodological advances have made it increasingly feasible to use VOI in practice for research; however, there are critical differences between the VOI approach and the standard methods used to design research studies such as clinical trials. We aimed to highlight key differences between the research design approach based on VOI and standard clinical trial design methods, in particular the importance of considering the full decision context. We present two hypothetical examples to demonstrate that VOI methods are only accurate when (1) all feasible comparators are included in the decision model when designing research, and (2) all comparators are retained in the decision model once the data have been collected and a final treatment recommendation is made. Omitting comparators from either the design or analysis phase of research when using VOI methods can lead to incorrect trial designs and/or treatment recommendations. Overall, we conclude that incorrectly specifying the health economic model by ignoring potential comparators can lead to misleading VOI results and potentially waste scarce research resources.
| S-EPMC11039417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the major public health problem worldwide. Neutral electrolyzed saline solution that contains reactive chlorine and oxygen species may be an effective therapeutic. In the present study, the treatment efficacy of intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone was evaluated in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. A prospective, 2-arm, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multi-center, phase I-II clinical trial including 214 patients was performed. The following two outcomes were evaluated during the 20-day follow-up: i) The number of patients with disease progression; and ii) the patient acceptable symptom state. Serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 naso/oro-pharyngeal detection by reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q) PCR was performed in certain patients of the experimental group. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were also evaluated in the experimental group. The experimental treatment decreased the risk of hospitalization by 89% [adjusted relative risk (RR)=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.37, P<0.001] and the risk of death by 96% (adjusted RR=0.04, 95% CI: 0.01-0.42, P=0.007) and also resulted in an 18-fold higher probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR=18.14, 95% CI: 7.29-45.09, P<0.001), compared with usual medical care alone. Overall, neutral electrolyzed saline solution was better than usual medical care alone. Of the patients analyzed, >50% were negative for the virus as detected by RT-qPCR in naso/oro-pharyngeal samples on day 4, with only a small number of positive patients on day 6. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, aberrant monocytes and increased lymphocytes and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated and a decrease in cortisol levels and an increase in the testosterone-cortisol ratio were observed on days 2 and 4. The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, neutral electrolyzed saline solution markedly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. The present clinical trial was registered in the Cuban public registry of clinical trials (RPCEC) database (May 5, 2020; no. TX-COVID19: RPCEC00000309).
| S-EPMC8281484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Infective endocarditis (IE) is among the most serious infectious diseases in the western world. Treatment requires lengthy hospitalisation, high-dosage antibiotic therapy and possible valve replacement surgery. Despite advances in treatment, the 1-year mortality remains at 20-40%. Studies indicate that patients experience persisting physical symptoms, diminished quality of life and difficulties returning to work up to a year postdischarge. No studies investigating the effects of rehabilitation have been published. We present the rationale and design of the CopenHeart(IE) trial, which investigates the effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated for IE.We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care on the physical and psychosocial functioning of patients treated for IE. The trial is a multicentre, parallel design trial with 1 : 1 individual randomisation to either the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of five psychoeducational consultations provided by specialised nurses and a 12-week exercise training programme. The primary outcome is mental health (MH) measured by the standardised Short Form 36 (SF-36). The secondary outcome is peak oxygen uptake measured by the bicycle ergospirometry test. Furthermore, a number of exploratory analyses will be performed. Based on sample size calculation, 150 patients treated for left-sided (native or prosthetic valve) or cardiac device endocarditis will be included in the trial. A qualitative and a survey-based complementary study will be undertaken, to investigate postdischarge experiences of the patients. A qualitative postintervention study will explore rehabilitation participation experiences.The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the regional research ethics committee (no H-1-2011-129) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no 2007-58-0015). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01512615.
| S-EPMC3533051 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Methods: A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group. Results: The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22-200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4. Conclusions: The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Trial registration: Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En.
| S-EPMC7491578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSeveral functional limitations persist after total knee replacement (TKR). Intensive exercise programs could resolve these limitations but are not well tolerated by many patients until a later stage (>2 months) after surgery. Evidence for exercise at a later stage after TKR is limited.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of later-stage exercise programs after TKR and to explore heterogeneity of treatment effects.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm single-blind randomized clinical trial (January 7, 2015, to November 9, 2017) using an intent-to-treat approach with follow-ups at 3 months and 6 months. The setting was Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (an outpatient physical therapy clinic and 4 community centers). Participants had primary TKR performed more than 2 months previously, were 60 years or older, experienced moderate functional limitations, and were medically cleared to exercise.InterventionsClinic-based physical therapy exercise (physical therapy arm), community-based group exercise (community arm), and usual care (control arm). The control arm continued their usual care, whereas the exercise arms participated in supervised exercise programs lasting 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was arm differences in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-Physical Function (WOMAC-PF) at 3 months. The secondary outcomes included performance-based tests germane to knee replacement and additional surveys of physical function. Data were analyzed by linear mixed models and responder analysis.ResultsA total of 240 participants (mean [SD] age, 70 [7] years; 61.7% female) were allocated to physical therapy (n = 96), community exercise (n = 96), or control (n = 48). All 3 arms demonstrated clinically important improvement. At 3 months, between-arm analyses for the WOMAC-PF demonstrated no differences between physical therapy and community (-2.2; 98.3% CI, -4.5 to 0.1), physical therapy and control (-2.1; 98.3% CI, -4.9 to 0.7), and community and control (0.1; 98.3% CI, -2.7 to 2.9). Performance-based tests demonstrated greater improvement in the physical therapy arm compared with both the community (0.1 z score units; 98.3% CI, 0.0-0.2) and control (0.3 z score units; 98.3% CI, 0.1-0.4) arms and the community arm compared with the control arm (0.2 z score units; 98.3% CI, 0.0-0.3). The physical therapy arm had more than 17.7% responders than the community arm and more than 19.0% responders than the control arm. There was no difference in responder rates between the community and control arms.Conclusions and relevanceBased on the primary outcome, participation in late-stage exercise programs after TKR offered no benefit over usual care. The benefits of physical therapy identified by the secondary outcomes and responder analysis require confirmation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02237911.
| S-EPMC6484600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePostpartum depression (PPD) affects as many as 20% of mothers, yet just 1 in 10 of these women receives evidence-based treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased PPD risk, reduced treatment access, and shifted preferences toward virtual care.ObjectiveTo determine whether an online 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based workshop added to treatment as usual improves PPD, anxiety, social support, mother-infant relationship quality, and infant temperament more than treatment as usual alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included 403 women with PPD who were recruited across Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 20 to October 4, 2020). Women with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores of at least 10 who were 18 years or older and had an infant younger than 12 months were eligible.InterventionsWomen were randomly assigned to receive a live, interactive online 1-day CBT-based workshop delivered by a registered psychotherapist, psychiatrist, or clinical psychology graduate student in addition to treatment as usual (n = 202) or to receive treatment as usual and wait-listed to receive the workshop 12 weeks later (n = 201).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in PPD (EPDS scores) in experimental and wait list control groups 12 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes included maternal anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7]), social support (Social Provisions Scale), quality of the mother-infant relationship (Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire), and infant temperament (Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised Very Short Form).ResultsParticipants all identified as women with a mean (SD) age of 31.8 (4.4) years. The workshop led to significant mean (SD) reductions in EPDS scores (from 16.47 [4.41] to 11.65 [4.83]; B = -4.82; P < .001) and was associated with a higher odds of exhibiting a clinically significant decrease in EPDS scores (odds ratio, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.66-6.46). The mean (SD) GAD-7 scores decreased from 12.41 (5.12) to 7.97 (5.54) after the workshop (B = -4.44; 95% CI, -5.47 to -3.38; P < .001) and participants were more likely to experience a clinically significant change (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.99-4.81). Mothers also reported improvements in bonding (B = -3.22; 95% CI, -4.72 to -1.71; P < .001), infant-focused anxiety (B = -1.64; 95% CI, -2.25 to 1.00; P < .001), social support (B = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.57; P < .001), and positive affectivity/surgency in infants (B = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, an online 1-day CBT-based workshop for PPD provides an effective, brief option for mothers, reducing PPD and anxiety as well as improving social support, the mother-infant relationship, and positive affectivity/surgency in offspring.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04485000.
| S-EPMC8427485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone.MethodsIn this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days.ResultsMedian time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively).ConclusionsAwake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.
| S-EPMC10276908 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10713302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Electronic medical records (EMRs) have the potential to facilitate the design of large cluster-randomized trials (CRTs).To describe the design of a CRT of clinical decision support to improve diabetes care and outcomes.In the Diabetes Improvement Group-Intervention Trial (DIG-IT), we identified and balanced preassignment characteristics of 12,675 diabetic patients cared for by 147 physicians in 24 practices of 2 systems using the same vendor's EMR. EMR-facilitated disease management was system A's experimental intervention; system B interventions involved patient empowerment, with or without disease management. For our sample, we: (1) identified characteristics associated with response to interventions or outcomes; (2) summarized feasible partitions of 10 system A practices (2 groups) and 14 system B practices (3 groups) using intra-cluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standardized differences; (3) selected (blinded) partitions to effectively balance the characteristics; and (4) randomly assigned groups of practices to interventions.In System A, 4,306 patients, were assigned to 2 groups of practices; 8,369 patients in system B were assigned to 3 groups of practices. Nearly all baseline outcome variables and covariates were well-balanced, including several not included in the initial design. DIG-IT's balance was superior to alternative partitions based on volume, geography or demographics alone.EMRs facilitated rigorous CRT design by identifying large numbers of patients with diabetes and enabling fair comparisons through preassignment balancing of practice sites. Our methods can be replicated in other settings and for other conditions, enhancing the power of other translational investigations.
| S-EPMC2359510 | biostudies-other