Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Debate

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

Authors: F. Lauzier, N. K. Adhikari, A. Seely, K. K. Y. Koo, E. P. Belley-Côté, K. E. A. Burns, D. J. Cook, F. D’Aragon, B. Rochwerg, M. E. Kho, S. J. W. Oczkowksi, E. H. Duan, M. O. Meade, A. G. Day, F. Lamontagne, for ACCADEMY (Academy of Critical Care – Development, Evaluation, and Methodology)

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Haynes R. Introduction. Compliance in Health Care. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979. p. 1–7. Haynes R. Introduction. Compliance in Health Care. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979. p. 1–7.
3.
go back to reference Goldsmith C. The effect of compliance distributions on therapeutic trials. Baltimore. In: Press JHU, editor. Compliance in Health Care. 1979: 297–308. Goldsmith C. The effect of compliance distributions on therapeutic trials. Baltimore. In: Press JHU, editor. Compliance in Health Care. 1979: 297–308.
4.
go back to reference Haynes RB, Dantes R. Patient compliance and the conduct and interpretation of therapeutic trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8(1):12–9.CrossRefPubMed Haynes RB, Dantes R. Patient compliance and the conduct and interpretation of therapeutic trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8(1):12–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Haynes R, Sackett D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. New York. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. Haynes R, Sackett D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. New York. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
9.
go back to reference Lamontagne F, Meade MO, Hebert PC, Asfar P, Lauzier F, Seely AJ, et al. Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(4):542–50. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4237-3.CrossRefPubMed Lamontagne F, Meade MO, Hebert PC, Asfar P, Lauzier F, Seely AJ, et al. Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(4):542–50. doi:10.​1007/​s00134-016-4237-3.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ellis S, Shumaker S, Sieber W, Rand C. Adherence to pharmacological interventions. Current trends and future directions. The pharmacological intervention working group. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5 Suppl):218S–25S.CrossRefPubMed Ellis S, Shumaker S, Sieber W, Rand C. Adherence to pharmacological interventions. Current trends and future directions. The pharmacological intervention working group. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5 Suppl):218S–25S.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lamontagne F, Cook DJ, Adhikari NKJ, Briel M, Duffett M, Kho ME et al. Vasopressor administration and sepsis: A survey of Canadian intensivists. Journal of Critical Care. 2011;26(5). doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.01.005. Lamontagne F, Cook DJ, Adhikari NKJ, Briel M, Duffett M, Kho ME et al. Vasopressor administration and sepsis: A survey of Canadian intensivists. Journal of Critical Care. 2011;26(5). doi:10.​1016/​j.​jcrc.​2011.​01.​005.
Metadata
Title
Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study
Authors
F. Lauzier
N. K. Adhikari
A. Seely
K. K. Y. Koo
E. P. Belley-Côté
K. E. A. Burns
D. J. Cook
F. D’Aragon
B. Rochwerg
M. E. Kho
S. J. W. Oczkowksi
E. H. Duan
M. O. Meade
A. G. Day
F. Lamontagne
for ACCADEMY (Academy of Critical Care – Development, Evaluation, and Methodology)
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0388-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue