Abstract
Introduction Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension.
Methods and Analysis The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies’ effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of 2 years. The primary analysis will test for equivalence with a 30% margin in a per-protocol cohort.
Ethics and Dissemination EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 4, 28th September 2019). The results will be disseminated widely in peer review journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups.
Trial registration number ISRCTN 46635087; registered pre-results, 11/08/2017.
Strengths and limitations of this study design
A cluster randomisation design maximises generalisability of results to UK NHS primary care.
Study interventions with minimal impact on existing NHS workflows should encourage recruitment.
Development of electronic study search tools and routinely collected data facilitates participation by remote and rural practices.
One-off policy interventions may have a limited long-term effect on prescribing behaviour.
Competing Interest Statement
Grant funding for research but no other competing interest: AR and AD had financial support from CSO Scotland for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN 46635087
Funding Statement
The development of this protocol received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The associated feasibility study was supported by CSO Scotland Catalyst grant number CGA/18/36.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 3, 16th May 2019).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos