Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study.

BACKGROUND: The standard definition for protocol adherence is the proportion of all scheduled doses that are delivered. In clinical research, this definition has several limitations when evaluating protocol adherence in trials that study interventions requiring continuous titration. DISCUSSION: Building upon a specific case study, we analyzed a recent trial of a continuously titrated intervention to assess the impact of different definitions of protocol deviations on the interpretation of protocol adherence. The OVATION pilot trial was an open-label randomized controlled trial of higher (75-80 mmHg) versus lower (60-65 mmHg) mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock. In this trial, potential protocol deviations were defined as MAP values outside the targeted range for \u3e4 consecutive hours during vasopressor therapy without synchronous and consistent adjustments of vasopressor doses. An adjudication committee reviewed each potential deviation to determine if it was clinically-justified or not. There are four reasons for this contextual measurement and reporting of protocol adherence. First, between-arm separation is a robust measure of adherence to complex protocols. Second, adherence assessed by protocol deviations varies in function of the definition of deviations and the frequency of measurements. Third, distinguishing clinically-justified vs. not clinically-justified protocol deviations acknowledges clinically sensible bedside decision-making and offers a clear terminology before the trial begins. Finally, multiple metrics exist to report protocol deviations, which provides different information but complementary information on protocol adherence. CONCLUSIONS: In trials of interventions requiring continuous titration, metrics used for defining protocol deviations have a considerable impact on the interpretation of protocol adherence. Definitions for protocol deviations should be prespecified and correlated with between-arm separation, if it can be measured

Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study

Abstract Background The standard definition for protocol adherence is the proportion of all scheduled doses that are delivered. In clinical research, this definition has several limitations when evaluating protocol adherence in trials that study interventions requiring continuous titration. Discussion Building upon a specific case study, we analyzed a recent trial of a continuously titrated intervention to assess the impact of different definitions of protocol deviations on the interpretation of protocol adherence. The OVATION pilot trial was an open-label randomized controlled trial of higher (75–80 mmHg) versus lower (60–65 mmHg) mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock. In this trial, potential protocol deviations were defined as MAP values outside the targeted range for >4 consecutive hours during vasopressor therapy without synchronous and consistent adjustments of vasopressor doses. An adjudication committee reviewed each potential deviation to determine if it was clinically-justified or not. There are four reasons for this contextual measurement and reporting of protocol adherence. First, between-arm separation is a robust measure of adherence to complex protocols. Second, adherence assessed by protocol deviations varies in function of the definition of deviations and the frequency of measurements. Third, distinguishing clinically-justified vs. not clinically-justified protocol deviations acknowledges clinically sensible bedside decision-making and offers a clear terminology before the trial begins. Finally, multiple metrics exist to report protocol deviations, which provides different information but complementary information on protocol adherence. Conclusions In trials of interventions requiring continuous titration, metrics used for defining protocol deviations have a considerable impact on the interpretation of protocol adherence. Definitions for protocol deviations should be prespecified and correlated with between-arm separation, if it can be measured

Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study

Abstract Background The standard definition for protocol adherence is the proportion of all scheduled doses that are delivered. In clinical research, this definition has several limitations when evaluating protocol adherence in trials that study interventions requiring continuous titration. Discussion Building upon a specific case study, we analyzed a recent trial of a continuously titrated intervention to assess the impact of different definitions of protocol deviations on the interpretation of protocol adherence. The OVATION pilot trial was an open-label randomized controlled trial of higher (75–80 mmHg) versus lower (60–65 mmHg) mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock. In this trial, potential protocol deviations were defined as MAP values outside the targeted range for >4 consecutive hours during vasopressor therapy without synchronous and consistent adjustments of vasopressor doses. An adjudication committee reviewed each potential deviation to determine if it was clinically-justified or not. There are four reasons for this contextual measurement and reporting of protocol adherence. First, between-arm separation is a robust measure of adherence to complex protocols. Second, adherence assessed by protocol deviations varies in function of the definition of deviations and the frequency of measurements. Third, distinguishing clinically-justified vs. not clinically-justified protocol deviations acknowledges clinically sensible bedside decision-making and offers a clear terminology before the trial begins. Finally, multiple metrics exist to report protocol deviations, which provides different information but complementary information on protocol adherence. Conclusions In trials of interventions requiring continuous titration, metrics used for defining protocol deviations have a considerable impact on the interpretation of protocol adherence. Definitions for protocol deviations should be prespecified and correlated with between-arm separation, if it can be measured

One-year outcomes after discharge from noncardiac surgery and association between pre-discharge complications and death after discharge: analysis of the VISION prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In prior analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. We set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to one year after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between pre-discharge complications and post-discharge death up to one year after surgery. METHODS: Analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007-2013 of patients aged ≥45 years followed to one year after surgery. We estimated 1) the cumulative post-discharge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and 2) the adjusted time-varying associations between post-discharge death and pre-discharge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis. RESULTS: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative one-year incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5-6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (24.2-25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Pre-discharge complications were associated with 33.7% (27.2-40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (12.0-17.9%) up to one year. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [9.3-21.9%) of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [4.1-8.7%] within one year), major bleeding (15.0% [8.3-21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [2.2-7.2%] within one year), and sepsis (5.4% [2.2-8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [1.0-3.1%] within one year). CONCLUSIONS: One in 18 patients ≥45 years old discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within one year and one quarter were readmitted to hospital. The risk of death associated with pre-discharge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge