Effect of Published Scientific Evidence on Glycemic Control in Adult Intensive Care Units

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Little is known about the deadoption of ineffective or harmful clinical practices. A large clinical trial (the Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation [NICE-SUGAR] trial) demonstrated that strict blood glucose control (tight glycemic control) in patients admitted to adult intensive care units (ICUs) should be deadopted; however, it is unknown whether deadoption occurred and how it compared with the initial adoption. OBJECTIVE To evaluate glycemic control in critically ill patients before and after the publication of clinical trials that initially suggested that tight glycemic control reduced mortality (Leuven I) but subsequently demonstrated that it increased mortality (NICE-SUGAR). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Interrupted time-series analysis of 353 464 patients admitted to 113 adult ICUs from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2012, in the United States using data from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation database. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The physiologically most extreme blood glucose level on day 1 of ICU admission defined glycemic control as tight control (glucose level, 80-110 mg/dL; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555), hypoglycemia (glucose level, <70 mg/dL), and hyperglycemia (glucose level, Ն180 mg/dL). Temporal changes in each marker were examined using mixed-effects segmented linear regression. RESULTS Before the publication of Leuven I, 17.2% (95% CI, 16.2%-18.2%) of ICU admissions had tight glycemic control, 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.5%) had hypoglycemia, and 40.2% (95% CI, 38.8%-41.5%) had hyperglycemia. After the publication of Leuven I, there were significant increases in the relative proportion of admissions with tight glycemic control (1.7% per quarter; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.3%; P < .001) and hypoglycemia (2.5% per quarter; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.2%; P < .001) and decreases in those with hyperglycemia (0.6% per quarter; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%; P < .001). Following the publication of NICE-SUGAR, there was no change in the proportion of patients with tight glycemic control or hyperglycemia. There was an immediate decrease in the relative proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (22.4%; 95% CI, 13.2%-30.1%; P < .001) but no subsequent change over time. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients admitted to adult ICUs in the United States, there was a slow steady adoption of tight glycemic control following publication of a clinical trial that suggested benefit, with little to no deadoption following a subsequent trial that demonstrated harm. There is an urgent need to understand and promote the deadoption of ineffective clinical practices.

Characterizing treatment pathways at scale using the OHDSI network

“…Local stakeholders (patient, family, physician, and consultant) and global stakeholders (industry, regulators, academics, and the public) interact in complex ways (social media, literature, lay press, guidelines, advertising, formularies, package inserts, and direct interaction) to generate choices based on a variety of inputs (indication, feasibility, preference, and cost) (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). Because of this complexity, actual practice can be characterized only empirically, answering questions such as what treatment choices are being made in clinical practice, how many patients experience which combination of therapies, and how patterns may change over time or across different locations and practice types.…”

Should We Continue to Use Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis for Critically Ill Patients?

“…In contrast, data comparing PPIs with H2RAs in terms of their association with nosocomial pneumonia are conflicting. Although several metaanalyses comparing PPIs and H2RAs showed no difference in the rate of nosocomial pneumonia, [5][6][7] several large observational studies have suggested an increased risk of pneumonia with PPIs relative to H2RAs. 15,16 Similarly, although observational studies have suggested an association between the use of PPIs and C. difficile-associated diarrhea, 14,17 the risk of this problem with use of H2RA appears to be lower.…”

“…With the subsequent introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) came small trials comparing the efficacy of these newer and more potent agents with that of the H2RAs. Several meta-analyses have suggested increased efficacy with PPIs relative to H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis, [5][6][7] but these analyses comprised poor-quality trials that included patients with variable risk of stress ulcers and assessed different outcomes (overt versus clinically important bleeding). The trials varied in sample size from 28 to 359 patients, and were underpowered relative to the landmark Cook trial (n = 1200 patients).…”

“…1 Why have some practices, such as use of pulmonary catheters and drotrecogin alfa, decreased in the face of evidence of harm or no benefit, 2,3 while others, such as application of restrictive transfusion thresholds and intensive glucose control, been more difficult to de-adopt? 4,5 The persistence of entrenched practice in the face of opposing evidence is a complex phenomenon, and the social context and historical, economic, and professional forces may be more important than the evidence. 6,7 Which practices in critical care are ready for de-adoption?…”

Effect of Published Scientific Evidence on Glycemic Control in Adult Intensive Care Units

“…Yatak başında iyi klinik uygulamalar, etkinliği kanıtlanmış uygulamaların benimsenmesi kadar zararlı olduğu gösterilmiş uygulamaların da terk edilmesini gerektirir (1). Yapılan çalışmalar sağlık bakım sistemlerinin, klinik uygulamalarda yayınlanmış bilimsel kanıtları kullanmakta yetersiz kaldığını göstermektedir.…”