在常规治疗中评估利尿剂(EVIDENCE):一项比较噻嗪类利尿剂在高血压治疗中有效性的群组随机对照等效性试验方案,该试验旨在比较处方政策。
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.
机构信息
MEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
出版信息
Trials. 2021 Nov 17;22(1):814. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05782-9.
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
ISRCTN 46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment).
简介
医疗保健系统必须使用有效且安全的治疗方法。监管机构在引入对现代治疗方法严格的证据要求之前,批准了许多当前使用的旧药物。此外,几乎没有鼓励对已批准的药物进行同类药物的头对头比较。对于常用的处方药,即使在疗效或安全性方面存在很小的差异,也可能对公众健康产生重大影响。然而,随机分配个体受试者的传统临床试验成本高昂且难以实施。此类试验也经常因外部有效性低而受到批评。我们以两种广泛用于治疗高血压的利尿剂为例,描述了一种快速生成具有外部有效性的比较安全性和有效性证据的方法。
方法和分析
EVIDENCE(评估正常护理中的利尿剂)研究采用前瞻性、集群随机、开放标签、盲终点设计。通过在初级保健实践中随机化处方政策,该研究比较了在治疗高血压方面常用利尿剂的安全性和有效性。参与实践以 1:1 的比例随机分配到在临床指征下开具吲达帕胺或苯氟噻嗪的政策。相应地将尚未服用政策利尿剂的合适患者转换为该药物。所有服用研究药物的患者都将收到一封信,解释更改处方政策的理由,并通知他们可以选择不进行任何转换。将使用主要不良心血管事件(因心肌梗死、心力衰竭或中风或心血管死亡住院)的发生率来比较两种政策的有效性和安全性,这些数据将从国家医疗保健管理数据集常规收集。该研究将招募 250 个实践单位,为大约 50000 名患者提供平均随访时间为两年的研究人群。将使用意向治疗时间至事件分析来估计两种政策的相对效果。
伦理和传播
EVIDENCE 已获得东苏格兰研究伦理服务局的批准(17/ES/0016,当前批准的协议版本 5,2021 年 8 月 26 日)。结果将广泛发表在同行评审期刊、指南委员会、国家卫生服务(NHS)组织和患者团体中。
试验注册
ISRCTN46635087。于 2017 年 8 月 11 日注册(预招募)。