↓ Skip to main content

When enough is enough: how the decision was made to stop the FEAST trial: data and safety monitoring in an African trial of Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy (FEAST) for critically ill children

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When enough is enough: how the decision was made to stop the FEAST trial: data and safety monitoring in an African trial of Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy (FEAST) for critically ill children
Published in
Trials, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-85
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jim Todd, Robert S Heyderman, Philippa Musoke, Tim Peto

Abstract

In resource-rich countries, bolus fluid expansion is routinely used for the treatment of poor perfusion and shock, but is less commonly used in many African settings. Controversial results from the recently completed FEAST (Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy) trial in African children have raised questions about the use of intravenous bolus fluid for the treatment of shock. Prior to the start of the trial, the Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) developed stopping rules for the proof of benefit that bolus fluid resuscitation would bring. Although careful safety monitoring was put in place, there was less expectation that bolus fluid expansion would be harmful and differential stopping rules for harm were not formulated.In July 2010, two protocol amendments were agreed to increase the sample size from 2,880 to 3,600 children, and to increase bolus fluid administration. There was a non-significant trend against bolus treatment, but although the implications were discussed, the IDMC did not comment on the results, or on the amendments, in order to avoid inadvertent partial unblinding of the study.In January 2011, the trial was stopped for futility, as the combined intervention arms had significantly higher mortality (relative risk 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.90, P = 0.004) than the control arm. The stopping rule for proof of benefit was not achieved, and the IDMC stopped the trial with a lower level of significance (P = 0.01) due to futility and an increased risk of mortality from bolus fluid expansion in children enrolled in the trial. The basis for this decision was that the local standard of care was not to use bolus fluid for the care of children with shock in these African countries, and this was a different standard of care to that used in the UK. These decisions emphasize two important principles: firstly, the IDMC should avoid inadvertent unblinding of the trial by commenting on amendments, and secondly, when considering stopping a trial, the IDMC should be guided by the local standard of care rather than standards of care in other parts of the world.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Other 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%