Why the study?
Does supplemental oxygen reduce the composite of hospitalization or death in patients with stable COPD and moderate oxyhemoglobin desaturation?
Does supplemental oxygen reduce the composite of hospitalization or death in patients with stable COPD and moderate oxyhemoglobin desaturation?
In patients with stable COPD and moderate resting or exercise-induced hypoxemia, long-term supplemental oxygen does not improve survival or reduce hospital admissions.
Withhold long-term oxygen in stable COPD with moderate desaturation; challenges prior recommendations and reinforces evidence-based restraint.
The Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial demonstrated that long-term supplemental oxygen did not reduce time to hospital admission or death for patients who have stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and resting and/or exercise-induced moderate oxyhemoglobin desaturation, nor did it provide benefit for any other outcome measured in the trial. Nine months after initiation of patient screening, after randomization of 34 patients to treatment, a trial design amendment broadened the eligible population, expanded the primary outcome, and reduced the goal sample size. Within a few years, the protocol underwent minor modifications, and a second trial design amendment lowered the required sample size because of lower than expected treatment group crossover rates. After 5.5 years of recruitment, the trial met its amended sample size goal, and 1 year later, it achieved its follow-up goal. The process of publishing the trial results brought renewed scrutiny of the study design and the amendments. This article expands on the previously published design and methods information, provides the rationale for the amendments, and gives insight into the investigators' decisions about trial conduct. The story of the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial may assist investigators in future trials, especially those that seek to assess the efficacy and safety of long-term oxygen therapy. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00692198).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yusen et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: