Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.

<h4>Background</h4>Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have re...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Andre C Kalil, Junfeng Sun
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2008
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b2d19aafa17f44e1a4056f95494bca50
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b2d19aafa17f44e1a4056f95494bca50
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b2d19aafa17f44e1a4056f95494bca502021-11-25T06:12:19ZWhy are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0002291https://doaj.org/article/b2d19aafa17f44e1a4056f95494bca502008-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/18509455/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have recommended them to clinical practice. Yet, the adoption of these therapies remains low among clinicians.<h4>Objectives</h4>We selected these five trials and asked: Question 1--What is the current probability that the new therapy is not better than the standard of care in my patient with severe sepsis? Question 2--What is the current probability of reducing the relative risk of death (RRR) of my patient with severe sepsis by meaningful clinical thresholds (RRR >15%; >20%; >25%)?<h4>Methods</h4>Bayesian methodologies were applied to this study. Odds ratio (OR) was considered for Question 1, and RRR was used for Question 2. We constructed prior distributions (enthusiastic; mild, moderate, and severe skeptic) based on various effective sample sizes of other relevant clinical trials (unfavorable evidence). Posterior distributions were calculated by combining the prior distributions and the data from pivotal trials (favorable evidence).<h4>Main findings</h4>Answer 1--The analysis based on mild skeptic prior shows beneficial results with the Intensive Insulin, rhAPC, and Low-Tidal Volume trials, but not with the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. All trials' results become unacceptable by the analyses using moderate or severe skeptic priors. Answer 2--If we aim for a RRR>15%, the mild skeptic analysis shows that the current probability of reducing death by this clinical threshold is 88% for the Intensive Insulin, 62-65% for the Low-Tidal Volume, rhAPC, EGDT trials, and 17% for the Low-Dose Steroid trial. The moderate and severe skeptic analyses show no clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death for all trials. If we aim for a RRR >20% or >25%, all probabilities of benefits become lower independent of the degree of skepticism.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our clinical threshold analysis offers a new bedside tool to be directly applied to the care of patients with severe sepsis. Our results demonstrate that the strength of evidence (statistical and clinical) is weak for all trials, particularly for the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. It is essential to replicate the results of each of these five clinical trials in confirmatory studies if we want to provide patient care based on scientifically sound evidence.Andre C KalilJunfeng SunPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 3, Iss 5, p e2291 (2008)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Andre C Kalil Junfeng Sun Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have recommended them to clinical practice. Yet, the adoption of these therapies remains low among clinicians.<h4>Objectives</h4>We selected these five trials and asked: Question 1--What is the current probability that the new therapy is not better than the standard of care in my patient with severe sepsis? Question 2--What is the current probability of reducing the relative risk of death (RRR) of my patient with severe sepsis by meaningful clinical thresholds (RRR >15%; >20%; >25%)?<h4>Methods</h4>Bayesian methodologies were applied to this study. Odds ratio (OR) was considered for Question 1, and RRR was used for Question 2. We constructed prior distributions (enthusiastic; mild, moderate, and severe skeptic) based on various effective sample sizes of other relevant clinical trials (unfavorable evidence). Posterior distributions were calculated by combining the prior distributions and the data from pivotal trials (favorable evidence).<h4>Main findings</h4>Answer 1--The analysis based on mild skeptic prior shows beneficial results with the Intensive Insulin, rhAPC, and Low-Tidal Volume trials, but not with the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. All trials' results become unacceptable by the analyses using moderate or severe skeptic priors. Answer 2--If we aim for a RRR>15%, the mild skeptic analysis shows that the current probability of reducing death by this clinical threshold is 88% for the Intensive Insulin, 62-65% for the Low-Tidal Volume, rhAPC, EGDT trials, and 17% for the Low-Dose Steroid trial. The moderate and severe skeptic analyses show no clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death for all trials. If we aim for a RRR >20% or >25%, all probabilities of benefits become lower independent of the degree of skepticism.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our clinical threshold analysis offers a new bedside tool to be directly applied to the care of patients with severe sepsis. Our results demonstrate that the strength of evidence (statistical and clinical) is weak for all trials, particularly for the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. It is essential to replicate the results of each of these five clinical trials in confirmatory studies if we want to provide patient care based on scientifically sound evidence.
format	article
author	Andre C Kalil Junfeng Sun
author_facet	Andre C Kalil Junfeng Sun
author_sort	Andre C Kalil
title	Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
title_short	Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
title_full	Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
title_fullStr	Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
title_full_unstemmed	Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.
title_sort	why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? a bayesian analysis.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2008
url	https://doaj.org/article/b2d19aafa17f44e1a4056f95494bca50
work_keys_str_mv	AT andreckalil whyarecliniciansnotembracingtheresultsfrompivotalclinicaltrialsinseveresepsisabayesiananalysis AT junfengsun whyarecliniciansnotembracingtheresultsfrompivotalclinicaltrialsinseveresepsisabayesiananalysis
_version_	1718414064374251520

Why are clinicians not embracing the results from pivotal clinical trials in severe sepsis? A bayesian analysis.

Ejemplares similares