FLUID trial: a protocol for a hospital-wide open-label cluster crossover pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised pilot trial

Fluid assessment, fluid balance, and fluid overload in sick children: a report from the Pediatric Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) conference

BACKGROUND

The impact of disorders of fluid balance, including the pathologic state of fluid overload in sick children has become increasingly apparent. With this understanding, there has been a shift from application of absolute thresholds of fluid accumulation to an appreciation of the intricacies of fluid balance, including the impact of timing, trajectory, and disease pathophysiology.

METHODS

The 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative was the first to be exclusively dedicated to pediatric and neonatal acute kidney injury (pADQI). As part of the consensus panel, a multidisciplinary working group dedicated to fluid balance, fluid accumulation, and fluid overload was created. Through a search, review, and appraisal of the literature, summative consensus statements, along with identification of knowledge gaps and recommendations for clinical practice and research were developed.

CONCLUSIONS

The 26th pADQI conference proposed harmonized terminology for fluid balance and for describing a pathologic state of fluid overload for clinical practice and research. Recommendations include that the terms daily fluid balance, cumulative fluid balance, and percent cumulative fluid balance be utilized to describe the fluid status of sick children. The term fluid overload is to be preserved for describing a pathologic state of positive fluid balance associated with adverse events. Several recommendations for research were proposed including focused validation of the definition of fluid balance, fluid overload, and proposed methodologic approaches and endpoints for clinical trials.

A Hospital-Wide Open-Label Cluster Crossover Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial Comparing Normal Saline to Ringer's Lactate: Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan of The FLUID Trial

BACKGROUND

Normal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids given to hospitalized patients. Despite concern about possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function, and death), few large multicenter randomized trials focused on critically ill patients have compared these fluids. Uncertainty exists about the effects of these fluids on clinically important outcomes across all hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE

The FLUID trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, 2×2 cluster crossover comparative effectiveness randomized trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-wide policy that stocks either NS or RL as the main crystalloid fluid in 16 hospitals across Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

All hospitalized adult and pediatric patients (anticipated sample size 144,000 patients) with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period will be included. Either NS or RL will be preferentially stocked throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks. The primary outcome is a composite of death and hospital readmission within 90 days of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes include death, hospital readmission, dialysis, reoperation, postoperative reintubation, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and discharge to a facility other than home. All outcomes will be obtained from health administrative data, eliminating the need for individual case reports. The primary analysis will use cluster-level summaries to estimate cluster-average treatment effects.

RESULTS

The statistical analysis plan has been prepared "a priori" in advance of receipt of the trial data set from ICES and any analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes for the FLUID trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04512950; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04512950.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51783.

FLUID trial: a hospital-wide open-label cluster cross-over pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised pilot trial comparing normal saline to Ringer's lactate

OBJECTIVES

Normal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids used for fluid therapy. Despite evidence of possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function and death), few large multi-centre randomised trials have evaluated the effect of these fluids on clinically important outcomes. We conducted a pilot trial to explore the feasibility of a large trial powered for clinically important outcomes.

DESIGN

FLUID was a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised cross-over trial.

SETTING

Four hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised adult and paediatric patients with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period.

INTERVENTIONS

A hospital wide policy/strategy which stocked either NS or RL throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary feasibility outcome was study fluid protocol adherence. Secondary feasibility outcomes included time to Research Ethics Board (REB) approval and trial initiation. Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 24 905 included patients, mean age 59.1 (SD 20.5); 13 977 (56.1%) were female and 21 150 (85.0%) had medical or surgical admitting diagnoses. Overall, 96 821 L were administered in the NS arm, and 78 348 L in the RL arm. Study fluid adherence to NS and RL was 93.7% (site range: 91.6%-98.0%) and 79.8% (site range: 72.5%-83.9%), respectively. Time to REB approval ranged from 2 to 48 days and readiness for trial initiation from 51 to 331 days. 5544 (22.3%) patients died or required hospital re-admission in the first 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The future large trial is feasible. Anticipating and addressing logistical challenges during the planning stages will be imperative.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02721485.

Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Feasibility studies are increasingly being used to support the development of, and investigate uncertainties around, future large-scale trials. The future trial can be designed with either a pragmatic or explanatory mindset. Whereas pragmatic trials aim to inform the choice between different care options and thus, are designed to resemble conditions outside of a clinical trial environment, explanatory trials examine the benefit of a treatment under more controlled conditions. There is existing guidance for designing feasibility studies, but none that explicitly considers the goals of pragmatic designs. We aimed to identify unique areas of uncertainty that are relevant to planning a pragmatic trial.

RESULTS

We identified ten relevant domains, partly based on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-2 (PRECIS-2) framework, and describe potential questions of uncertainty within each: intervention development, research ethics, participant identification and eligibility, recruitment of individuals, setting, organization, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and importance of primary outcome to patients and decision-makers. We present examples to illustrate how uncertainty in these domains might be addressed within a feasibility study.

CONCLUSION

Researchers planning a feasibility study in advance of a pragmatic trial should consider feasibility objectives specifically relevant to areas of uncertainty for pragmatic trials.

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction

Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent.

Methods

The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have.

Results

Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation.

Discussion

Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal.

Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol

Background

There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in “learning healthcare systems”) are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Methods

Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document.

Discussion

Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.