Search

Abstract Background Surgical placebos are controversial. This in-depth study explored the design, acceptability, and feasibility issues relevant to designing a surgical placebo-controlled trial for the evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic lavage for the management of people with osteoarthritis of the knee in the UK. Methods Two surgeon focus groups at a UK national meeting for orthopaedic surgeons and one regional surgeon focus group (41 surgeons); plenary discussion at a UK national meeting for orthopaedic anaesthetists (130 anaesthetists); three focus groups with anaesthetists (one national, two regional; 58 anaesthetists); two focus groups with members of the patient organisation Arthritis Care (7 participants); telephone interviews with people on consultant waiting lists from two UK regional centres (15 participants); interviews with Chairs of UK ethics committees (6 individuals); postal surveys of members of the British Association of Surgeons of the Knee (382 surgeons) and members of the British Society of Orthopaedic Anaesthetists (398 anaesthetists); two centre pilot (49 patients assessed). Results There was widespread acceptance that evaluation of arthroscopic lavage had to be conducted with a placebo control if scientific rigour was not to be compromised. The choice of placebo surgical procedure (three small incisions) proved easier than the method of anaesthesia (general anaesthesia). General anaesthesia, while an excellent mimic, was more intrusive and raised concerns among some stakeholders and caused extensive discussion with local decision-makers when seeking formal approval for the pilot. Patients were willing to participate in a pilot with a placebo arm; although some patients when allocated to surgery became apprehensive about the possibility of receiving placebo, and withdrew. Placebo surgery was undertaken successfully. Conclusions Our study illustrated the opposing and often strongly held opinions about surgical placebos, the ethical issues underpinning this controversy, and the challenges that exist even when ethics committee approval has been granted. It showed that a placebo-controlled trial could be conducted in principle, albeit with difficulty. It also highlighted that not only does a placebo-controlled trial in surgery have to be ethically and scientifically acceptable but that it also must be a feasible course of action. The place of placebo-controlled surgical trials more generally is likely to be limited and require specific circumstances to be met. Suggested criteria are presented. Trial registration number The trial was assigned ISRCTN02328576 through http://controlled-trials.com/ in June 2006. The first patient was randomised to the pilot in July 2007.

Abstract Background- Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and markedly increased health care costs. Critically ill patients who require management in an Intensive Care Unit are particularly susceptible to these infections which are associated with a very high mortality. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) may reduce these infections and improve mortality but it has not been widely adopted into practice. We aim to 1. Clarify reasons why clinicians have avoided implementing SDD into clinical practice despite the current best-evidence 2. Describe barriers to SDD implementation and 3. Identify what further evidence is required before full scale clinical implementation would be considered appropriate and feasible. Methods- We have developed an international 'multi-lens' approach to investigate SDD from several perspectives. In case studies we will identify accounts of implementation of SDD in practice, in terms of the behaviours performed by the full range of individual clinicians, accounts of how SDD was first introduced into the Unit and specific content that may be used to populate the content of behaviour change techniques to be used in an implementation intervention and procedures to consider in order to deliver an implementation trial. In a 4 round Delphi study we will identify the range of stakeholders' beliefs, views and perceived barriers relating to the use of SDD. We will generate hypotheses about key beliefs about SDD and will inform the feasibility of any future randomised controlled trial. In large-scale nationwide postal questionnaire surveys of the state of current practice we will identify the factors predicting acceptability of an effectiveness or implementation trial using, and informed by, the theoretical domains structure. In semi-structured interviews with active international clinical trialists we will assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and identify challenges and barriers to undertaking research in the field of SDD research. Discussion We believe these methods will allow us to determine whether clinical implementation trials or further large effectiveness trials are required before full scale implementation into clinical practice.

Background: Routine application of chlorhexidine oral rinse is recommended to reduce risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. Recent reappraisal of the evidence from two meta-analyses suggests chlorhexidine may cause excess mortality in non-cardiac surgery patients and does not reduce VAP. Mechanisms for possible excess mortality are unclear. The CHORAL study will evaluate the impact of de-adopting chlorhexidine and implementing an oral care bundle (excluding chlorhexidine) on mortality, infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVACs), and oral health status., Methods: The CHORAL study is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial in six academic intensive care units (ICUs) in Toronto, Canada. Clusters (ICU) will be randomly allocated to six sequential steps over a 14-month period to de-adopt oral chlorhexidine and implement a standardized oral care bundle (oral assessment, tooth brushing, moisturization, and secretion removal). On study commencement, all clusters begin with a control period in which the standard of care is oral chlorhexidine. Clusters then begin crossover from control to intervention every 2 months according to the randomization schedule. Participants include all mechanically ventilated adults eligible to receive the standardized oral care bundle. The primary outcome is ICU mortality; secondary outcomes are IVACs and oral health status. We will determine demographics, antibiotic usage, mortality, and IVAC rates from a validated local ICU clinical registry. With six clusters and 50 ventilated patients on average each month per cluster, we estimate that 4200 patients provide 80% power after accounting for intracluster correlation to detect an absolute reduction in mortality of 5.5%. We will analyze our primary outcome of mortality using a generalized linear mixed model adjusting for time to account for secular trends. We will conduct a process evaluation to determine intervention fidelity and to inform interpretation of the trial results., Discussion: The CHORAL study will inform understanding of the effectiveness of de-adoption of oral chlorhexidine and implementation of a standardized oral care bundle for decreasing ICU mortality and IVAC rates while improving oral health status. Our process evaluation will inform clinicians and decision makers about intervention delivery to support future de-adoption if justified by trial results., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03382730 . Registered on December 26, 2017.

Background: The decision to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field raises ethical as well as scientific issues. From the clinical equipoise literature, future trials are justifiable if there is "honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment". Empirical data are sparse about how clinicians apply the principles of equipoise to the justification of future RCTs. For example, selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is not widely used in critical care practice despite the strength of the evidence base and therefore provides a unique opportunity to learn how clinicians think about the ethics of further RCTs in critical care., Methods: In an international interview study of views of healthcare professionals about SDD, we undertook a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected using a Theoretical Domains Framework of clinical behaviour. We adopted a general descriptive approach to explore how physicians determined whether another RCT of SDD is ethical. Following a constant comparison approach, three investigators reviewed 54 purposively chosen transcripts from three international regions. We interpreted the data using thematic analysis., Results: We grouped participants' responses into four inter-related themes: 1) cultural norms about evidence and practice within healthcare; 2) personal views about what evidence is current or applicable; 3) the interpersonal and relational nature of professional decision making locally; and 4) an a priori commitment to future trials. The analysis also identified several unresolved tensions regarding when a future RCT should be pursued. These tensions focused on a clash between potential benefits to current individual patients and potential future harms to patients more broadly., Conclusions: Our study suggests that ethical decision making about future RCTs in the field of SDD does not rely strongly on appeals to evidence, even when the quality of the evidence is reasonably high. Rather, "extra-evidential" reasons, including social, professional, and relational factors, seem to influence opinions regarding the ethics of future trials. Further work is required to see if these conclusions are applicable to other clinical topics and settings.