Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Baltimore, MD (K.F., L.J.A.).
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (K.F., C.A.M.A., L.J.A.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Nov;13(11):e006378. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006378. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
Implementation of prevention policies has often been impeded or delayed due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with hard clinical outcomes (eg, incident disease, mortality). Despite the prominent role of RCTs in health care, it may not always be feasible to conduct RCTs of public health interventions with hard outcomes due to logistical and ethical considerations. RCTs may also lack external validity and have limited generalizability. Currently, there is insufficient guidance for policymakers charged with establishing evidence-based policy to determine whether an RCT with hard outcomes is needed before policy recommendations. In this context, the purpose of this article is to assess, in a case study, the feasibility of conducting an RCT of the oft-cited issue of sodium reduction on cardiovascular outcomes and then propose a framework for decision-making, which includes an assessment of the feasibility of conducting an RCT with hard clinical outcomes when such trials are unavailable. We designed and assessed the feasibility of potential individual- and cluster-randomized trials of sodium reduction on cardiovascular outcomes. Based on our assumptions, a trial using any of the designs considered would require tens of thousands of participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, which is prohibitively expensive. Our estimates may be conservative given several key challenges, such as the unknown costs of sustaining a long-term difference in sodium intake, the effect of differential cotreatment with antihypertensive medications, and long lag time to clinical outcomes. Thus, it would be extraordinarily difficult to conduct such a trial, and despite the high costs, would still be at substantial risk for a spuriously null result. A robust framework, such as the one we developed, should be used to guide policymakers when establishing evidence-based public health interventions in the absence of trials with hard clinical outcomes.
由于缺乏具有硬性临床结局(如发病、死亡率)的随机对照试验(RCT),预防政策的实施经常受阻或延迟。尽管 RCT 在医疗保健中具有重要作用,但由于后勤和伦理方面的考虑,对于具有硬性结局的公共卫生干预措施进行 RCT 可能并不总是可行的。RCT 也可能缺乏外部有效性并且推广性有限。目前,对于负责制定基于证据的政策的政策制定者来说,缺乏足够的指导来确定在提出政策建议之前是否需要进行具有硬性结局的 RCT。在这种情况下,本文的目的是在案例研究中评估对经常被引用的减少钠摄入量对心血管结局问题进行 RCT 的可行性,然后提出一个决策框架,包括在无法进行具有硬性临床结局的 RCT 时,评估进行此类试验的可行性。我们设计并评估了减少钠摄入量对心血管结局进行个体和群组随机试验的可行性。根据我们的假设,使用任何一种设计的试验都需要成千上万的参与者和数亿美元的成本,这是非常昂贵的。鉴于一些关键挑战,我们的估计可能较为保守,例如维持长期钠摄入量差异的未知成本、降压药物差异化联合治疗的影响以及临床结局的长滞后时间。因此,进行这样的试验非常困难,而且尽管成本高昂,但仍存在虚假零结果的巨大风险。在缺乏具有硬性临床结局的试验的情况下,应使用稳健的框架(如我们开发的框架)来指导政策制定者制定基于证据的公共卫生干预措施。