Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277204›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2022

Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): a feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.

Angela Flynn, Amy Rogers, Lewis McConnachie, Rebecca Barr, Robert W V Flynn, Isla S Mackenzie, Thomas M MacDonald, Alexander S F Doney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela FlynnMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. axflynn@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8505-1274
Amy RogersMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Lewis McConnachieMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Rebecca BarrMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Robert W V FlynnMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Isla S MackenzieMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Thomas M MacDonaldMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Alexander S F DoneyMEMO Research, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
University of Dundee · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CSO Scotland Catalyst grant number CGA/18/36.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObtaining evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety of widely prescribed drugs in a timely and cost-effective way is a major challenge for healthcare systems. Here, we describe the feasibility of the Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) study that compares a thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics for hypertension as an exemplar of a more general framework for efficient generation of such evidence. In 2011, the UK NICE hypertension guideline included a recommendation that thiazide-like diuretics (such as indapamide) be used in preference to thiazide diuretics (such as bendroflumethiazide) for hypertension. There is sparse evidence backing this recommendation, and bendroflumethiazide remains widely used in the UK.

methodsPatients prescribed indapamide or bendroflumethiazide regularly for hypertension were identified in participating general practices. Allocation of a prescribing policy favouring one of these drugs was then randomly applied to the practice and, where required to comply with the policy, repeat prescriptions switched by pharmacy staff. Patients were informed of the potential switch by letter and given the opportunity to opt out. Practice adherence to the randomised policy was assessed by measuring the amount of policy drug prescribed as a proportion of total combined indapamide and bendroflumethiazide. Routinely collected hospitalisation and death data in the NHS will be used to compare cardiovascular event rates between the two policies.

resultsThis pilot recruited 30 primary care practices in five Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards. Fifteen practices were randomised to indapamide (2682 patients) and 15 to bendroflumethiazide (3437 patients), a study population of 6119 patients. Prior to randomisation, bendroflumethiazide was prescribed to 78% of patients prescribed either of these drugs. Only 1.6% of patients opted out of the proposed medication switch.

conclusionThe pilot and subsequent recruitment confirms the methodology is scalable within NHS Scotland for a fully powered larger study; currently, 102 GP practices (> 12,700 patients) are participating in this study. It has the potential to efficiently produce externally valid comparative effectiveness data with minimal disruption to practice staff or patients. Streamlining this pragmatic trial approach has demonstrated the feasibility of a random prescribing policy design framework that can be adapted to other therapeutic areas.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017.

Indexed as

Comparative effectivenessDrug prescriptionsHypertensionPilotPrescribing policyPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID35277204
PMCPMC8914438
OpenAlexW4220908407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.