Evolution not revolution: the future of the randomised controlled trial in intensive care research

Peake, Sandra; Delaney, Anthony; French, Craig J

doi:10.5694/mja2.50338

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Statistics, epidemiology and research design

Health services administration

Innovative design methodologies may improve the statistical efficiency and success of future randomised trials

Over the past two decades, hundreds of parallel arm, double blind and open label randomised trials have been conducted in the critically ill. The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Clinical Trials Group (CTG) has been at the forefront, conducting pivotal trials that have changed international practice in fields such as fluid resuscitation,1,2 sepsis,3,4 renal failure,5 traumatic brain injury6 and nutrition7. To date, only a handful of multicentre randomised trials have demonstrated improved patient outcomes.8,9 The initial promise of interventions such as protocolised, goal‐directed haemodynamic resuscitation for early septic shock (early goal‐directed therapy),3,10 tight glycaemic control11,12 and recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis13 has not been reproduced in subsequent confirmatory trials. Subsequent debate over the role of randomised trials to inform intensive care practice has led to calls for them to be abandoned,14 with others stating that they are “doomed to fail”.15 Is such a revolution in research methodology required? Or is it possible for the randomised clinical trial to evolve? A summary of studies discussed in this article is provided in the Box.

1 The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA
2 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
3 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
4 George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW
5 Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW
6 Western Heath, Melbourne, VIC

Correspondence: sandra.peake@sa.gov.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1901–1911.
2. SAFE Study Investigators. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2247–2256.
3. ARISE investigators, ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, Peake SL, et al. Goal‐directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014: 371: 1496–1506.
4. Venkatesh B, Finfer S, Cohen J, et al. Adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 797–808.
5. Renal Replacement Therapy Study Investigators. Intensity of continuous renal‐replacement therapy. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1627–1638.
6. Cooper DJ, Rosenfeld JV, Murray L, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in diffused traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1793–1502.
7. TARGET Investigators, for the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Energy‐dense versus routine enteral nutrition in the critically ill. N Engl J Med 2018: 379: 1823–1834.
8. Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard J‐C, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2159–2168.
9. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the adult respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1301–1308.
10. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal‐directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shlock. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1368–1377.
11. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1359–1367.
12. NICE‐SUGAR Study Investigators. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1283–1297.
13. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2055–2064.
14. Vincent JL. We should abandon randomised controlled trails in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2010; 38(10 Suppl): S534–S538.
15. Ospina‐Tascon GA, Buchele GL, Vincent JL. Multicentre, randomised, controlled trials evaluating mortality in intensive care: doomed to fail? Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 1311–1322.
16. Shehabi Y, Howe BD, Bellomo R, et al. Early sedation with dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 2506–2517.
17. Process Investigators. A randomized trial of protocol‐based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1683–1693.
18. MERIT Study Investigators. Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster‐randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365: 2091–2097.
19. Krag M, Marker S, Perner A, et al. Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2199–2208.
20. CRASH‐2 collaborators, Shakur H, Roberts I et al. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in teauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH‐2): a randomised, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 23–32.
21. Young PJ, Bagshaw SM, Forbes A, et al. A cluster randomised, crossover, registry‐embedded clinical trial of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine‐2 receptor blockers for ulcer prophylaxis therapy in the intensive care unit (PEPTIC study): study protocol. Crit Care Resusc 2018 Sep; 20(3): 182–189.
22. Hammond NE, Taylor C, Finfer S, et al. Patterns of intravenous fluid resuscitation use in adult intensive care units between 2007 and 2014: an additional cross‐sectional study. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0176292.
23. SAFE Study Investigators, Finfer S, McEvoy S, et al. Impact of albumin compared to saline on organ function and mortality of patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37: 86–96.
24. SAFE Study Investigators. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 874–884.
25. Australian Clinical Trials Alliance. Economic evaluation of investigator‐initiated clinical trials conducted by networks: final report. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2017. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications/economic-evaluation-of-investigator-initiated-clinical-trials-conducted-by-networks/ (viewed May 2019).
26. Harhay MO, Wagner J, Ratcliffe SJ, et al. Outcomes and statistical power in adult critical care randomised trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189: 1469–1478.
27. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj, et al. Ticegrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045–1057.
28. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, et al. Apixiban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 981–992.
29. Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derovatin, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clerical phenotypes for sepsis. JAMA 2019; 321: 2003–2017.
30. Lauer MS, D'Agostino RB. The randomized registry trial. the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1579–1581.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Evolution not revolution: the future of the randomised controlled trial in intensive care research

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *