Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The IMMEDIATE trial: Should EMS give Glucose-Insulin-Potassium?

The results of the IMMEDIATE trial have been popping up repeatedly today on Facebook, partly because I "like" a few EMS FB pages, and also because one of the authors (Hi Carin!) is a FB friend and recent Yale ED attending.

Here's an example of the way the trial is being described:


"ACS patients benefit;" "cut the risk of death in half." Sounds great! I love medical reporting/press releases. No pesky nuance or qualification. Me no need anyhow.

The result they are describing, to be specific, is that 8.7% of the people getting the placebo had a cardiac arrest, or died while they were hospitalized, while only 4.4% of the patients getting the study drug did. That's either an (absolute) difference of 4.3%, or about a (relative) 50% decline.

Such an effect would be stunning.  In the years after thrombolytics and aspirin were introduced, the incremental benefits of new therapies for AMI have been getting smaller and smaller. This result here would blow the others out of the water.

For instance, back in 1988, it was shown in ISIS-2 that either the use of aspirin or of thrombolytics reduced the risk of death in MI by about 2-3% over placebo. The combination was better of course.

After that, it's been harder to show that the more complicated and expensive therapies save that many more lives. When we send a patient to the cath lab for an AMI (instead of giving a thrombolytic in the ED), for example, there isn't that huge a benefit. One recent analysis suggested that, overall, you could only find a 0.7% difference in mortality (6.6% vs 5.9%) between lysed patients, and those that went for PCI. A lot of money for not much gain.

So, if this combination of glucose, insulin, and potassium (GIK) could cut mortality in AMI from 6.6% to, say, 3.3%, it would be freakin' amazing.

"I bet there's a catch. There's always a catch."
Well, I don't mean to be an Eeyore, but the perhaps we should wait for, yes, "further study." I offer three reasons why:

1. They weren't studying mortality.

The principle outcome they were studying was whether the initial presentation of ACS would progress to an MI, or it would be an "aborted" MI. This is the outcome that they believed had the most biochemical and clinical justification, and they clearly thought that it had a reasonable chance of being demonstrated.

It turns out there was no difference in the percent of people who progressed to completed MI - the GIK infusion did not help, at least not here. So the trial is negative for the real primary outcome.

2. There were 12 secondary outcomes.

Look at the table of the results:



Remember: the outcome they staked the success of the trial on was the one at the top: "Progression to MI," for all participants.  The rest are a bunch of secondary outcomes, and they don't count to the same degree as the primary outcome.

Analogy: A friend is flipping a coin, and you call heads. That's your primary outcome of interest. But if you also say to your friend "Okay, I call heads, but I also call it if you drop the coin, if it flips over 5 times in the air, if your phone rings in the next 30 seconds, or if your nose starts to itch in the next 10 seconds.

Now, you may be wrong about heads, but say your friend's nose does indeed start to itch in the next 10 seconds? Will he concede defeat? What will he say?

"No pick! NO PICK!" 
Most likely your friend will point out that the most relevant and important prediction you made was heads vs tails. Furthermore, you called out such a long list of other items that you were almost certain to come up with a positive result. He will insistent on another coin toss, where the primary outcome is now nose-itching, not heads or tails.

The same holds in statistics and study design, and is also why the authors state in their conclusion (my emphasis):
"The primary end point was not significantly different between groups, and the observed favorable results of GIK were based on prespecified but secondary end points, although biologically plausible and consistent with preclinical studies. The study tested one primary hypothesis, 3 major secondary, and 6 other secondary hypotheses. All were prespecified and no adjustment for multiple comparisons among the secondary end points was made; thus, reported significance levels should be considered approximate. Accordingly, given the lack of complete consistency of the findings, and the modest P values for most of the statistically significant findings, it would be appropriate to describe the observed favorable effects on the secondary outcomes as generating clinically testable hypotheses for evaluation in larger cohorts."

3. 30 day mortality seems pretty important too...

Ok, say you can take the "cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality" results at face value. What, then, shall we make of the 30-day mortality? It was shown to be basically the same in both groups.

We just saw this discussion take place last month. A study from Japan showed that giving epinephrine in cardiac arrest got people to the hospital with ROSC more often, but the 30-day mortality was no different (We'll leave the neuro results alone for now.).

It would be nice if epi put all the dots on the right side of the graph. But it doesn't.
So, say the results are right - people don't die or arrest in the hospital as often, but they still die in the first 30 days just as often. Now, maybe everyone's hospital stay was over 30 days, but I doubt it.

Still feel excited?

Bottom line:

If they conduct another study that confirms the mortality benefit, it would be the greatest thing since the free coffee machine in the ED break room. But, unlike the coffee machine, such results are conjecture for now.

3 comments:

  1. 𝙊𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙫𝙞𝙧𝙪𝙨, 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚!
    𝙈𝙨. 𝙏𝘼 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘼𝙐𝙎𝙏𝙍𝘼𝙇𝙄𝘼 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙜𝙣𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙮𝙥𝙚1 (𝙃𝙎𝙑1), 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 # 𝙙𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚@gmail.𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝘿𝙧 𝙐𝙩𝙪 𝙤𝙣 𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙪𝙢. 𝘼𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙠𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙨𝙫1. 𝘼𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙮 𝙄 𝙜𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙖 𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was diagnosed as HEPATITIS B carrier in 2013 with fibrosis of the
    liver already present. I started on antiviral medications which
    reduced the viral load initially. After a couple of years the virus
    became resistant. I started on HEPATITIS B Herbal treatment from
    ULTIMATE LIFE CLINIC (www.ultimatelifeclinic.com) in March, 2020. Their
    treatment totally reversed the virus. I did another blood test after
    the 6 months long treatment and tested negative to the virus. Amazing
    treatment! This treatment is a breakthrough for all HBV carriers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’d recommend using Dr. Utu Herbal Cure topically for instant pain and itch relief as well as accelerated healing of lesions and permanently stopping oral and genital herpes virus outbreaks. I have tried just about everything from acyclovir suppressive therapy to different natural oils, extracts, and other natural methods, some of which are EXTREMELY painful and exacerbate the problem (i.e. apple cider vinegar!). While vitamin E oil and suppressive therapy worked well for me, when I became pregnant I went back to trying to find a herbal cure. I was using vitamin E oil topically for a while but it was thin and difficult to use and only seemed to prevent further outbreaks rather than getting rid of it. I contacted Dr. Utu Herbal Cure through my friend. To my surprise, I could tell my outbreak was starting to heal within only a few hours! No more itching or irritation! Dr. Utu Herbal Cure that I used was liquid herbs in bottles, so it was very easy to use. It just whiffs, but it works so I don’t mind! The biggest part of my testimony was that I successfully delivered a herpes-free beautiful daughter without further medications. Anyone who has tried Dr. Utu Herbal Cure knows just how quickly those treatments can add up. So give it a try! Anyone can reach Dr. Utu through
    drutuherbalcure@gmail.com
    +2349072733661

    ReplyDelete