Conducting a registry-based randomised trial (REDOX) in chronic respiratory failure: experiences and advice.

IF 1.8 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
European Clinical Respiratory Journal Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20018525.2025.2502237
Josefin Sundh, Magnus Ekström
{"title":"Conducting a registry-based randomised trial (REDOX) in chronic respiratory failure: experiences and advice.","authors":"Josefin Sundh, Magnus Ekström","doi":"10.1080/20018525.2025.2502237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Registry-based randomised controlled trials (R-RCTs) represent a paradigm shift in research, with the potential to accomplish pragmatic but large trials with high external validity. In this paper, we review our experiences from planning and performing the <i>REgistry-based randomised controlled trial of treatment Duration and mortality in long-term OXygen therapy (REDOX) trial</i>, the first R-RCT within respiratory medicine. The REDOX study compared the two established treatment options of home oxygen 15 and 24 h per day. Previous recommendations to use oxygen for at least 15 h but preferably 24 h per day were based on a non-randomised comparison of two different studies. We hypothesised that oxygen 24 h/day was non-superior to 15 h/day and used the Swedish National Registry for Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) to perform an R-RCT showing that home oxygen 24 h/day does not improve survival, hospitalisation or patient-reported outcomes within 1 year. We describe the entire procedure of REDOX from planning to publication and use it to discuss challenges and potential solutions for future R-RCTs. In summary, common features of R-RCTs are the use of a registry for identification and randomisation of participants and for reporting and collecting baseline and outcome data, and the design is typically used to compare two treatment options. Important strengths are high generalisability, low cost, feasibility for consecutive recruitment in clinical practice, and high completeness of follow-up. Limitations include that coverage, completeness and accuracy of baseline data may differ between registries. Specific challenges (and solutions) in REDOX were addressing an important question (pragmatic clinical trials), management (clinical research support teams), costs (using registry-based infrastructure), different electronic data capture systems (posttrial linkage), slow recruitment (amendment of protocol) and resistance to challenge treatment traditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11872,"journal":{"name":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"2502237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2025.2502237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Registry-based randomised controlled trials (R-RCTs) represent a paradigm shift in research, with the potential to accomplish pragmatic but large trials with high external validity. In this paper, we review our experiences from planning and performing the REgistry-based randomised controlled trial of treatment Duration and mortality in long-term OXygen therapy (REDOX) trial, the first R-RCT within respiratory medicine. The REDOX study compared the two established treatment options of home oxygen 15 and 24 h per day. Previous recommendations to use oxygen for at least 15 h but preferably 24 h per day were based on a non-randomised comparison of two different studies. We hypothesised that oxygen 24 h/day was non-superior to 15 h/day and used the Swedish National Registry for Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) to perform an R-RCT showing that home oxygen 24 h/day does not improve survival, hospitalisation or patient-reported outcomes within 1 year. We describe the entire procedure of REDOX from planning to publication and use it to discuss challenges and potential solutions for future R-RCTs. In summary, common features of R-RCTs are the use of a registry for identification and randomisation of participants and for reporting and collecting baseline and outcome data, and the design is typically used to compare two treatment options. Important strengths are high generalisability, low cost, feasibility for consecutive recruitment in clinical practice, and high completeness of follow-up. Limitations include that coverage, completeness and accuracy of baseline data may differ between registries. Specific challenges (and solutions) in REDOX were addressing an important question (pragmatic clinical trials), management (clinical research support teams), costs (using registry-based infrastructure), different electronic data capture systems (posttrial linkage), slow recruitment (amendment of protocol) and resistance to challenge treatment traditions.

在慢性呼吸衰竭中进行基于注册的随机试验(REDOX):经验和建议。
基于注册的随机对照试验(r - rct)代表了研究范式的转变,有可能完成实用但具有高外部效度的大型试验。在本文中,我们回顾了我们计划和执行长期氧治疗(REDOX)试验中治疗持续时间和死亡率的基于注册的随机对照试验的经验,这是呼吸医学领域的第一个R-RCT。氧化还原研究比较了两种既定的治疗方案,即每天15小时和24小时的家庭氧气。以前建议每天至少使用15小时氧气,最好是24小时,这是基于两项不同研究的非随机比较。我们假设24小时/天的供氧并不优于15小时/天,并使用瑞典国家呼吸衰竭登记处(Swedevox)进行R-RCT,显示24小时/天的家庭供氧并不能改善1年内的生存率、住院率或患者报告的结果。我们描述了氧化还原从计划到发表的整个过程,并用它来讨论未来r - rct的挑战和潜在解决方案。总之,r - rct的共同特征是使用注册表来识别和随机化参与者,并报告和收集基线和结果数据,该设计通常用于比较两种治疗方案。重要优势是通用性强、成本低、临床可连续招募、随访完整性高。限制包括基线数据的覆盖范围、完整性和准确性可能在不同的注册中心之间有所不同。氧化还原的具体挑战(和解决方案)是解决一个重要问题(实用的临床试验)、管理(临床研究支持团队)、成本(使用基于注册的基础设施)、不同的电子数据捕获系统(试验后链接)、缓慢的招募(修改方案)和对挑战治疗传统的抵抗。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信