REgistry-based randomized controlled trial of treatment and Duration and mortality in long-term OXygen therapy (REDOX) study protocol

Long-Term Oxygen Therapy for 24 or 15 Hours per Day in Severe Hypoxemia

BACKGROUND

Long-term oxygen supplementation for at least 15 hours per day prolongs survival among patients with severe hypoxemia. On the basis of a nonrandomized comparison, long-term oxygen therapy has been recommended to be used for 24 hours per day, a more burdensome regimen.

METHODS

To test the hypothesis that long-term oxygen therapy used for 24 hours per day does not result in a lower risk of hospitalization or death at 1 year than therapy for 15 hours per day, we conducted a multicenter, registry-based, randomized, controlled trial involving patients who were starting oxygen therapy for chronic, severe hypoxemia at rest. The patients were randomly assigned to receive long-term oxygen therapy for 24 or 15 hours per day. The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was a composite of hospitalization or death from any cause within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome assessed at 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Between May 18, 2018, and April 4, 2022, a total of 241 patients were randomly assigned to receive long-term oxygen therapy for 24 hours per day (117 patients) or 15 hours per day (124 patients). No patient was lost to follow-up. At 12 months, the median patient-reported daily duration of oxygen therapy was 24.0 hours (interquartile range, 21.0 to 24.0) in the 24-hour group and 15.0 hours (interquartile range, 15.0 to 16.0) in the 15-hour group. The risk of hospitalization or death within 1 year in the 24-hour group was not lower than that in the 15-hour group (mean rate, 124.7 and 124.5 events per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.36; 90% CI, 0.76 to 1.29; P = 0.007 for nonsuperiority). The groups did not differ substantially in the incidence of hospitalization for any cause, death from any cause, or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe hypoxemia, long-term oxygen therapy used for 24 hours per day did not result in a lower risk of hospitalization or death within 1 year than therapy for 15 hours per day. (Funded by the Crafoord Foundation and others; REDOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03441204.).

The benefits and drawbacks of home oxygen therapy for COPD: what's next?

INTRODUCTION

Home oxygen therapy is one of the few interventions that can improve survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when administered appropriately, although it may cause side effects and be an unnecessary burden for some patients.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes the current literature on the assessment of hypoxemia, different types of home oxygen therapy, potential beneficial and adverse effects, and emerging research on home oxygen therapy in COPD. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE up to January 2024, with additional articles being identified through clinical guidelines.

EXPERT OPINION

Hypoxemia is common in patients with more severe COPD. Long-term oxygen therapy is established to prolong survival in patients with chronic severe resting hypoxemia. Conversely, in the absence of chronic severe resting hypoxemia, home oxygen therapy has an unclear or conflicting evidence base, including for palliation of breathlessness, and is generally not recommended. However, beneficial effects in some patients cannot be precluded. Evidence is emerging on the optimal daily duration of oxygen use, the role of high-flow and auto-titrated oxygen therapy, improved informed decision-making, and telemonitoring. Further research is needed to validate novel oxygen delivery systems and monitoring tools and establish long-term effects of ambulatory oxygen therapy in COPD.

Registry-based randomised controlled trials: conduct, advantages and challenges-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Registry-based randomised controlled trials (rRCTs) have been described as pragmatic studies utilising patient data embedded in large-scale registries to facilitate key clinical trial procedures including recruitment, randomisation and the collection of outcome data. Whilst the practice of utilising registries to support the conduct of randomised trials is increasing, the use of the registries within rRCTs is inconsistent. The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the conduct of rRCTs using a patient registry to facilitate trial recruitment and the collection of outcome data, and to discuss the advantages and challenges of rRCTs.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using five databases from inception to June 2020: PubMed, Embase (through Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). The search strategy comprised of MESH terms and key words related to rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. A risk of bias for each study was completed. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total 47,862 titles were screened and 24 rRCTs were included. Eleven rRCTs (45.8%) used more than one registry to facilitate trial conduct. Six rRCTs (25%) randomised participants via a specific randomisation module embedded within a registry. Recruitment ranged between 209 to 106,000 participants. Advantages of rRCTs are recruitment efficiency, shorter trial times, cost effectiveness, outcome data completeness, smaller carbon footprint, lower participant burden and the ability to conduct multiple trials from the same registry. Challenges are data collection/management, quality assurance issues and the timing of informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimising the design of rRCTs is dependent on the capabilities of the registry. New registries should be designed and existing registries reviewed to enable the conduct of rRCTs. At all times, data management and quality assurance of all registry data should be given key consideration. We suggest the inclusion of the term 'registry-based' in the title of all rRCT manuscripts and a clear simple breakdown of the registry-based conduct of the trial in the abstract to facilitate indexing in the major databases.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned.

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs.

CONCLUSION

Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Is it time to include oxygen needs as an endpoint in clinical trials in patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease? If so, how?

Many patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD) will need to use supplemental oxygen (O2) to maintain normoxia at some point in their illness. If it is not needed at the time of diagnosis, then if fILD progresses-or if a comorbid condition like pulmonary hypertension develops-O2 will become necessary, often, initially, during exertion and all-too-often, eventually, at rest as well. But presumably, if all else remains stable, if fILD progression is halted or slowed, O2 needs follow in parallel. Despite perceived or unnoticed benefits of O2, and prescribers' good intentions to improve patients' sense of well-being, patients with fILD generally view O2 with frustration and fear, as it threatens their already-impaired quality of life. Because of how meaningful and impactful O2 is to the lives of patients with fILD, 'O2 need' is a critically important-and perhaps the most-patient-centred metric that should be considered for incorporation as an endpoint in therapeutic trials. It is unclear how this should be done, but in this paper, we offer some possible approaches that merit consideration.

Registry-based randomised clinical trials: a remedy for evidence-based diabetes care?

This narrative review describes a new approach to navigation in a challenging landscape of clinical drug development in diabetes. Successful outcome studies in recent years have led to new indications and guidelines in type 2 diabetes, yet the number of clinical trials in diabetes is now declining. This is due to many environmental factors acting in concert, including the prioritisation of funding for other diseases, high costs of large randomised clinical trials, increase in regulatory requirements and limited entry of novel candidate drugs. There is a need for novel and cost-effective paradigms of clinical development to meet these and other challenges. The concept of registry-based randomised clinical trials (RRCTs) is an attractive option. In this review we focus on type 2 diabetes and the prevention of cardiovascular and microvascular comorbidities and mortality, using the Swedish SMARTEST trial as an example of an RRCT. We also give some examples from other disease areas. The RRCT concept is a novel, cost-effective and scientifically sound approach for conducting large-scale diabetes trials in a real-world setting.

Validation of the Swedevox registry of continuous positive airway pressure, long-term mechanical ventilator and long-term oxygen therapy

Background

The Swedish Registry of Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) collects nationwide data on patients starting continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, long-term mechanical ventilator (LTMV) and long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). We validated key information in Swedevox against source data from medical records.

Methods

This was a retrospective validation study of patients starting CPAP (n=175), LTMV (n=177) or LTOT (n=175) across seven centres 2013–2017. Agreement with medical record data was analysed using differences in means (sd) and proportion (%) of a selection of clinically relevant variables. Variables of interest included for CPAP: apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI), height, weight, body mass index (BMI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score; for LTMV: date of blood gas, arterial carbon dioxide tension (P_aCO2) (breathing air), weight and diagnosis group; and for LTOT: blood gases breathing air and oxygen, spirometry and main diagnosis.

Results

Data on CPAP and LTOT had very high validity across all evaluated variables (all <5% discrepancy). For LTMV, variability was higher against source information for P_aCO2 (>0.5 kPa in 25.9%), weight (>5 kg in 47.5%) and diagnosis group. Inconsistency was higher for patients starting LTMV acutely versus electively (P_aCO2 difference >0.5 kPa in 36% versus 21%, p<0.05, respectively). However, there were no signs of systematic bias (mean differences close to zero) across the evaluated variables.

Conclusion

Validity of Swedevox data, compared with medical records, was very high for CPAP, LTMV and LTOT. The large sample size and lack of systematic differences support that Swedevox data are valid for healthcare quality assessment and research.

The National Swedish Registry for Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) of CPAP, long-term mechanical ventilator and long-term oxygen has high validity compared with medical records, and is suitable for follow-up of medical care and for clinical researchhttps://bit.ly/31ACMY6

Continuing versus suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: Impact on adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)--The BRACE CORONA Trial

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) expression may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. DESIGN: BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 34 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, and troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal-proBNP, and D-dimer levels. SUMMARY: BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19.

Participants' written informed consent in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials with medicines

Introduction: An important gap within modern medicine is the lack of enough comparative effectiveness research of marketed medicines. Low-risk pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) are those conducted resembling usual clinical practice that poses no or minimal incremental risk compared with normal clinical practice.Areas covered: This review addresses one important hurdle in the conduct of low-risk pRCTs: the need to seek participants' written informed consent.Expert opinion: The CIOMS ethical guidelines consider that any research that (a) would not be feasible or practicable to carry out without the waiver or modification, (b) has important social value, and (c) poses no more than minimal risks to participants, and that is approved by the relevant research ethics committee, could be conducted without participants' consent. It is clear that these provisions are applicable to some low-risk RCTs. Recently a research on the EU-CTR registry showed that only 2% of all ongoing phase 4 RCTs could have fulfilled the CIOMS provisions following the investigators' assessment. The EU clinical trial regulation - and that of other jurisdictions - should be debated on the suitableness of the conduct with an alteration or waiver of participants' consent of those low-risk pRCTs that fulfill the three CIOMS provisions.

Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? A critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature

Purpose

Patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment experience distressing side effects, and these symptoms are often experienced outside the hospital setting. The impact of usage of cancer-related mobile health (mHealth) applications on patient-related outcomes requires investigation.

Methods

A critical appraisal of the literature was performed for the following question: ‘In patients with cancer have mHealth applications been compared with usual care to examine impact on commonly used clinical outcomes’. Literature searches were undertaken with the help of a research librarian and included Medline, Cochrane Collaboration, clinical trial databases and grey searches.

Results

Seventeen studies including between 12 and 2352 patients were identified and reviewed. Smartphone applications or internet portals collected data on symptoms or patient activity. Several studies showed statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes when symptom monitoring using mobile health application was compared to usual care. Change in mobility was the only outcome that was related directly to toxicity. Only limited data on mortality, cancer-related morbidity including complications of care, health-economic outcomes or long-term outcomes were reported.

Conclusions

Studies on mHealth applications might improve aspects of symptom control in patients with cancer, but there is currently little evidence for impact on other outcomes. This requires future research in interventional studies.