tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 2;18(1):311. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3122-x.
[h=1]Clinicians' attitude towards a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults hospitalised with influenza.[/h] Bradbury N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Nguyen-Van-Tam J[SUP]3[/SUP], Lim WS[SUP]4[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Senior clinicians (n = 50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Clinical practice; Equipoise; Ethics; Influenza; Neuraminidase inhibitors; Oseltamivir; Pandemic; Survey; Zanamivir
PMID: 29716584 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3122-x
Free full text
[h=1]Clinicians' attitude towards a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults hospitalised with influenza.[/h] Bradbury N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Nguyen-Van-Tam J[SUP]3[/SUP], Lim WS[SUP]4[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Senior clinicians (n = 50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Clinical practice; Equipoise; Ethics; Influenza; Neuraminidase inhibitors; Oseltamivir; Pandemic; Survey; Zanamivir
PMID: 29716584 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3122-x
Free full text