Promoting Research with Organ Transplant Patients

Reporting and Handling of Missing Participant Data in Systematic Reviews of Kidney Transplant Studies

BACKGROUND

Participant withdrawal from clinical trials occurs for various reasons, predominantly adverse effects or intervention inefficacy. Because these missing participant data can have implications for the validity, reproducibility, and generalizability of study results, when conducting a systematic review, it is important to collect and appropriately analyze missing data information to assess its effects on the robustness of the study results.

METHODS

In this methodologic survey of missing participant data reporting and handling in systematic reviews, we included meta-analyses that provided pooled estimates of at least 1 dichotomous intervention outcome of a randomized controlled trial performed in adult kidney transplant subjects.

RESULTS

Eighty-three systematic reviews (17 Cochrane and 66 non-Cochrane reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The most common intervention was drugs (80%), with the majority involving immunosuppressant drugs 55% (n = 46), followed by surgery in 14% (n = 12). The median follow-up duration was 12 months (maximum, 240 mo). Intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 24% (n = 20) of the reviews (76% of Cochrane and 10% of non-Cochrane). Overall, the majority of systematic reviews did not quantify (90% [n = 60] non-Cochrane and 29% [n = 5] Cochrane) or include the reasons for missing participant data (88% [n = 58] non-Cochrane and 24% [n = 4] Cochrane). Eleven percent (n = 9) handled missing participant data, 5% (n = 4) justified the analytical method(s) used to handle it, and 2% (n = 2) performed a sensitivity analysis for it.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews of kidney transplantation provide inadequate information on missing participant data and usually do not handle or discuss the associated risk of bias with it.

Trials & Tribulations of Liver Transplantation- are trials now prohibitive without surrogate endpoints?

During the past 5 decades, liver transplantation has moved from its pioneering days where success was measured in days to a point where it is viewed as a routine part of medical care. Despite this progress, there are still significant unmet needs and outstanding questions that need addressing in clinical trials to improve outcomes for patients. The traditional endpoint for trials in liver transplantation has been 1-year patient survival, but with rates now approaching 95%, this endpoint now poses a number of significant financial and logistical barriers to conducting trials because of the large numbers of participants required to demonstrate only an incremental improvement. Here, we suggest the following solutions to this challenge: adoption of validated surrogate endpoints; bigger and better collaborative multiarm, multiphase studies; recognition by funders and institutions that work on larger collaborative research projects is potentially more important than smaller, self-led bodies of work; ringfenced areas of research within trial frameworks where individuals can take a lead; and fair funding structures using both industry and public sector money across national and international borders.

A Learning Health System for Pediatric Liver Transplant: The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Learning health systems (LHS) integrate research, improvement, management, and patient care, such that every child receives "the right care at the right time...every time," that is, evidence-based, personalized medicine. Here, we report our efforts to establish a sustainable, productive, multicenter LHS focused on pediatric liver transplantation.

METHODS

The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) is the first multicenter effort by pediatric liver transplant families and providers to develop shared priorities and a shared agenda for innovation in clinical care. This report outlines SNEPT's structure, accomplishments, and challenges as an LHS.

RESULTS

We prioritized 4 initial projects: immunosuppression, perioperative anticoagulation, quality of life, and transition of care. We shared center protocols/management to identify areas of practice variability between centers. We prioritized actionable items that address barriers to providing "the right care at the right time" to every pediatric liver transplant recipient: facilitating transparency of practice variation and the connection of practices to patient outcomes, harnessing existing datasets to reduce the burden of tracking outcomes, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into outcome metrics, and accelerating the implementation of knowledge into clinical practice. This has allowed us to strengthen collaborative relationships, design quality improvement projects, and collect pilot data for each of our priority projects.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of pediatric liver transplantation can be advanced through application of LHS principles. Going forward, SNEPT will continue to unite patient advocacy, big data, technology, and transplant thought leaders to deliver the best care, while developing new, scalable solutions to pediatric transplantation's most challenging problems.