Assessing the impact of risk-based data monitoring on outcomes for a paediatric multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Regulatory guidelines recommend that sponsors develop a risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence to guide the effective implementation of monitoring activities encompassed in this approach. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency and impact of the risk-based monitoring approach used for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing treatments in paediatric patients undergoing cardiac bypass surgery. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial that implemented targeted source data verification as part of the risk-based monitoring approach. Monitoring duration and source to database error rates were calculated across the monitored trial dataset. The monitored and unmonitored trial dataset, and simulated trial datasets with differing degrees of source data verification and cohort sizes were compared for their effect on trial outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 106,749 critical data points across 1,282 participants were verified from source data either remotely or on-site during the trial. The total time spent monitoring was 365 hours, with a median (interquartile range) of 10 (7, 16) minutes per participant. An overall source to database error rate of 3.1% was found, and this did not differ between treatment groups. A low rate of error was found for all outcomes undergoing 100% source data verification, with the exception of two secondary outcomes with error rates >10%. Minimal variation in trial outcomes were found between the unmonitored and monitored datasets. Reduced degrees of source data verification and reduced cohort sizes assessed using simulated trial datasets had minimal impact on trial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted source data verification of data critical to trial outcomes, which carried with it a substantial time investment, did not have an impact on study outcomes in this trial. This evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of targeted source data verification contributes to the evidence-base regarding the context where reduced emphasis should be placed on source data verification as the foremost monitoring activity.

Adaptive Clinical Trials in Pediatric Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review investigates the use of adaptive designs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric critical care. DATA SOURCES: PICU RCTs, published between 1986 and 2020, stored in the www.PICUtrials.net database and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and LILACS databases were searched (March 9, 2022) to identify RCTs published in 2021. PICU RCTs using adaptive designs were identified through an automated full-text screening algorithm. STUDY SELECTION: All RCTs involving children (< 18 yr old) cared for in a PICU were included. There were no restrictions to disease cohort, intervention, or outcome. Interim monitoring by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board that was not prespecified to change the trial design or implementation of the study was not considered adaptive. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted the type of adaptive design, the justification for the design, and the stopping rule used. Characteristics of the trial were also extracted, and the results summarized through narrative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen of 528 PICU RCTs (3%) used adaptive designs with two types of adaptations used; group sequential design and sample size reestimation. Of the 11 trials that used a group sequential adaptive design, seven stopped early due to futility and one stopped early due to efficacy. Of the seven trials that performed a sample size reestimation, the estimated sample size decreased in three trials and increased in one trial. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence of the use of adaptive designs was found, with only 3% of PICU RCTs incorporating an adaptive design and only two types of adaptations used. Identifying the barriers to adoption of more complex adaptive trial designs is needed.

Impact of 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis time bundles on antibiotic use in emergency departments in Queensland, Australia: a before-and-after cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the introduction of an emergency department (ED) sepsis screening tool and management bundle affects antibiotic prescribing and use. DESIGN: Multicentre, cohort, before-and-after study design. SETTING: Three tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia (median bed size 543, range 520-742). PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients, presenting to the ED with symptoms and signs suggestive of sepsis who had blood cultures collected. These participants were further assessed and stratified as having septic shock, sepsis or infection alone, using Sepsis-3 definitions. The study dates were 1 July 2017-31 March 2020. INTERVENTION: The breakthrough series collaborative 'Could this be Sepsis?' Programme, aimed at embedding a sepsis screening tool and treatment bundle with weighted-incidence syndromic combined antibiogram-derived antibiotic guidelines in EDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of empirical prescriptions adherent to antibiotic guidelines during the ED encounter. Secondary outcomes included the empirical prescriptions considered appropriate, effective antibiotics administered within 3 hours and assessment of harm measures. RESULTS: Of 2591 eligible patients, 721 were randomly selected: 241 in the baseline phase and 480 in the post-intervention phase. The rates of guideline adherence were 54.0% and 59.5%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.00, 1.98)). As compared with baseline, there was an increase in the rates of appropriate antibiotic prescription after bundle implementation (69.9% vs 57.1%, aOR 1.92 (95% CI 1.37, 2.68)). There were no differences between the baseline and post-intervention groups with respect to time to effective antibiotics, adverse effects or ED rates of broad-spectrum antibiotic use. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The use of an ED sepsis screening tool and management bundle was associated with an improvement in the rates of appropriate antibiotic prescription without evidence of adverse effects.

Impact of 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis time bundles on patient outcomes and antimicrobial use: A before and after cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis bundles, promulgated by Surviving Sepsis Campaign have not been widely adopted because of variability in sepsis identification strategies, implementation challenges, concerns about excess antimicrobial use, and limited evidence of benefit. METHODS: A 1-hour septic shock and a 3-hour sepsis bundle were implemented using a Breakthrough Series Collaborative in 14 public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. A before (baseline) and after (post-intervention) study evaluated its impact on outcomes and antimicrobial prescription in patients with confirmed bacteremia and sepsis. FINDINGS: Between 01 July 2017 to 31 March 2020, of 6976 adults presenting to the Emergency Departments and had a blood culture taken, 1802 patients (732 baseline, 1070 post-intervention) met inclusion criteria. Time to antibiotics in 1-hour 73.7% vs 85.1% (OR 1.9 [95%CI 1.1-3.6]) and the 3-hour bundle compliance (48.2% to 63.3%, OR 1.7, [95%CI 1.4 to 2.1]) improved post-intervention, accompanied by a significant reduction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates (26.5% vs 17.5% (OR 0.5, [95%CI 0.4 to 0.7]). There were no significant differences in-hospital and 30-day post discharge mortality between the two phases. In a post-hoc analysis of the post-intervention phase, sepsis pathway compliance was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (9.7% vs 14.9%, OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4 to 0.8). The proportions of appropriate antimicrobial prescription at baseline and post-intervention respectively were 55.4% vs 64.1%, (OR 1.4 [95%CI 0.9 to 2.1]). INTERPRETATION: Implementing 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis bundles for patients presenting with bacteremia resulted in improved bundle compliance and a reduced need for ICU admission without adversely influencing antimicrobial prescription.