An international multicenter protocol to assess the single and combined benefits of antiemetic interventions in a controlled clinical trial of a 2×2×2×2×2×2 factorial design (IMPACT)

Christian C Apfel M.D. , Kari Korttila F.R.C.A., Ph.D. , Mona Abdalla Ph.D. , Andreas Biedler M.D. , Peter Kranke M.D. , Stuart J Pocock Ph.D. , N Roewer M.D.
{"title":"An international multicenter protocol to assess the single and combined benefits of antiemetic interventions in a controlled clinical trial of a 2×2×2×2×2×2 factorial design (IMPACT)","authors":"Christian C Apfel M.D. ,&nbsp;Kari Korttila F.R.C.A., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Mona Abdalla Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Andreas Biedler M.D. ,&nbsp;Peter Kranke M.D. ,&nbsp;Stuart J Pocock Ph.D. ,&nbsp;N Roewer M.D.","doi":"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00107-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>For various diseases clinicians have to combine different drugs or interventions when a single drug or intervention does not lead to satisfactory results. However, quantifying the relative benefit of certain drugs or interventions when given alone and in combination under controlled conditions requires a complex factorial design. This paper describes such a method applied to a large multicenter trial for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which may be of great interest for other specialties. Approximately 28 million operations are performed annually in the United States, mainly under general anesthesia with volatile anesthetics. Unfortunately, one-third of these patients suffer from PONV. This prompted extensive research of antiemetic and anesthetic drugs, but none of the interventions appeared to satisfactorily prevent PONV. Scuderi et al. were the first to almost eliminate PONV by combining various antiemetic interventions; however, the relative benefit of each intervention remained unclear. Accordingly, we have designed a large randomized controlled trial studying six different antiemetic interventions—three involving use of various antiemetic drugs and three involving choice of anesthetic drugs—to answer the following main questions: (1) What is the relative benefit of each of the antiemetic intervention? (2) Are certain combinations of antiemetic interventions more effective than others? Using a complete factorial design this leads to 2<sup>3</sup> <!-->=<!--> <!-->8 antiemetic combinations, which multiply with the 2<sup>3</sup> <!-->=<!--> <!-->8 combinations of anesthetic drugs, leading to a total of 2<sup>6</sup> <!-->=<!--> <!-->64 possible combinations. The six factors are the antiemetics ondansetron (versus control), dexamethasone (versus control), droperidol (versus control), and the intravenous anesthetic propofol (versus volatile anesthetics), air (versus nitrous oxide), and remifentanil (versus fentanyl). The primary outcome is freedom from PONV within the first 24 hours after anesthesia. Eligible patients are adults scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with an increased risk for PONV so that the expected incidence in the control group (with none of the six antiemetic interventions) is approximately 60%. In order to allow analyses for up to three factor interactions, a sample size was estimated to be in the range of approximately 5000 patients. To the best of our knowledge this is the first randomized controlled trial of a six-way factorial design that may serve as an example for numerous other medical specialties.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"24 6","pages":"Pages 736-751"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00107-7","citationCount":"68","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 68

Abstract

For various diseases clinicians have to combine different drugs or interventions when a single drug or intervention does not lead to satisfactory results. However, quantifying the relative benefit of certain drugs or interventions when given alone and in combination under controlled conditions requires a complex factorial design. This paper describes such a method applied to a large multicenter trial for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which may be of great interest for other specialties. Approximately 28 million operations are performed annually in the United States, mainly under general anesthesia with volatile anesthetics. Unfortunately, one-third of these patients suffer from PONV. This prompted extensive research of antiemetic and anesthetic drugs, but none of the interventions appeared to satisfactorily prevent PONV. Scuderi et al. were the first to almost eliminate PONV by combining various antiemetic interventions; however, the relative benefit of each intervention remained unclear. Accordingly, we have designed a large randomized controlled trial studying six different antiemetic interventions—three involving use of various antiemetic drugs and three involving choice of anesthetic drugs—to answer the following main questions: (1) What is the relative benefit of each of the antiemetic intervention? (2) Are certain combinations of antiemetic interventions more effective than others? Using a complete factorial design this leads to 23 = 8 antiemetic combinations, which multiply with the 23 = 8 combinations of anesthetic drugs, leading to a total of 26 = 64 possible combinations. The six factors are the antiemetics ondansetron (versus control), dexamethasone (versus control), droperidol (versus control), and the intravenous anesthetic propofol (versus volatile anesthetics), air (versus nitrous oxide), and remifentanil (versus fentanyl). The primary outcome is freedom from PONV within the first 24 hours after anesthesia. Eligible patients are adults scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with an increased risk for PONV so that the expected incidence in the control group (with none of the six antiemetic interventions) is approximately 60%. In order to allow analyses for up to three factor interactions, a sample size was estimated to be in the range of approximately 5000 patients. To the best of our knowledge this is the first randomized controlled trial of a six-way factorial design that may serve as an example for numerous other medical specialties.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项国际多中心方案,在2×2×2×2×2×2因子设计(IMPACT)的对照临床试验中评估止吐干预的单一和联合益处
对于各种疾病,当单一药物或干预措施不能产生满意的结果时,临床医生必须联合使用不同的药物或干预措施。然而,量化某些药物或干预措施单独或在受控条件下联合使用的相对益处需要复杂的因子设计。本文描述了该方法在预防术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的大型多中心试验中的应用,可能对其他专业有很大的兴趣。在美国,每年大约有2800万例手术,主要是在全身麻醉和挥发性麻醉剂下进行的。不幸的是,三分之一的患者患有PONV。这促使了对止吐药和麻醉药物的广泛研究,但没有一种干预措施似乎能令人满意地预防PONV。Scuderi等人首先通过结合各种止吐干预措施几乎消除了PONV;然而,每种干预措施的相对益处仍不清楚。因此,我们设计了一项大型随机对照试验,研究了六种不同的止吐干预措施,其中三种涉及使用各种止吐药物,三种涉及麻醉药物的选择,以回答以下主要问题:(1)每种止吐干预措施的相对益处是什么?(2)某些止吐干预组合是否比其他组合更有效?使用完全析因设计,得到23 = 8种止吐药组合,再与23 = 8种麻醉药物组合相乘,得到26 = 64种可能的组合。这六个因素是止吐剂昂丹西酮(与对照组相比)、地塞米松(与对照组相比)、哌啶醇(与对照组相比)、静脉麻醉剂异丙酚(与挥发性麻醉剂相比)、空气(与氧化亚氮相比)和瑞芬太尼(与芬太尼相比)。主要结局是麻醉后24小时内无PONV。符合条件的患者是计划在全身麻醉下进行选择性手术的成年人,PONV的风险增加,因此对照组(没有六种止吐干预)的预期发生率约为60%。为了允许分析多达三个因素的相互作用,样本量估计在大约5000名患者的范围内。据我们所知,这是第一个六向析因设计的随机对照试验,可以作为许多其他医学专业的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels Geographic variability in patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in an international trial of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1