Hospitalization as an outcome in ambulatory COVID-19 trials-not applicable in every setting

Preventable sources of bias in subgroup analyses and secondary outcomes of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for determining treatment efficacy in medicine. To deter harmful practices such as p-hacking and hypothesizing after the results are known, any analysis of subgroups and secondary outcomes must be documented and pre-specified. However, they can still introduce bias (and routinely do) if they are not treated with the same consideration as the primary analysis.

METHODS

We describe several sources of bias that affect subgroup and secondary outcome analyses using published randomized trials and causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs).

RESULTS

We use the RECOVERY and START trials to elucidate sources of bias in analyses of subgroups and secondary outcomes. Chance imbalance can occur if the distribution of prognostic variables is not sought for any given subgroup analysis as for the main analysis. This differential distribution of prognostic variables can also occur in analyses of secondary outcomes. Selection bias can occur if the subgroup variable is causally related to staying in the trial. Given loss to follow up is not normally addressed in subgroups, attrition bias can pass unnoticed in these cases. In every case, the solution is to take the same considerations for these analyses as we do for primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Approval of treatments and clinical decisions can occur based on results from subgroup or secondary outcome analyses. Thus, it is important to give them the same treatment as primary analyses to avoid preventable biases.

Pyridostigmine reduces mortality of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: A phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial

Background:

Respiratory failure in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a severe inflammatory response. Acetylcholine (ACh) reduces systemic inflammation in experimental bacterial and viral infections. Pyridostigmine increases the half-life of endogenous ACh, potentially reducing systemic inflammation. We aimed to determine if pyridostigmine decreases a composite outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and death in adult patients with severe COVID-19.

Methods:

We performed a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial of oral pyridostigmine (60 mg/day) or placebo as add-on therapy in adult patients admitted due to confirmed severe COVID-19 not requiring IMV at enrollment. The primary outcome was a composite of IMV or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included reduction of inflammatory markers and circulating cytokines, and 90-day mortality. Adverse events (AEs) related to study treatment were documented and described.

Results:

We recruited 188 participants (94 per group); 112 (59.6%) were men; the median (IQR) age was 52 (44–64) years. The study was terminated early due to a significant reduction in the primary outcome in the treatment arm and increased difficulty with recruitment. The primary outcome occurred in 22 (23.4%) participants in the placebo group vs. 11 (11.7%) in the pyridostigmine group (hazard ratio, 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.9; P = 0.03). This effect was driven by a reduction in mortality (19 vs. 8 deaths, respectively).

Conclusion:

Our data indicate that adding pyridostigmine to standard care reduces mortality among patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19.