Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials

Assessment of Noninferiority Margins in Cardiovascular Medicine Trials

Background

Noninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials.

Methods

We reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included.

Results

We analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Recalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent.

METHODS

We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

A simple index to predict healing in venous leg ulcers: a secondary analysis from four randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the use of a simple baseline measurement predicts venous leg ulcer healing at 12 and 24 weeks.

METHOD

This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments adjuvant to compression. Self-reported ulcer duration, and measured ulcer length and width, to calculate estimated ulcer area, were used to obtain a Margolis index score. The score created three prognostic strata for likelihood to heal within 24 weeks, and the number of participants healed and time-to-healing were compared.

RESULTS

There were a total of 802 participants across the four RCTs-408 (50.9%) in two 12-week trials and 394 (49.1%) in two 24-week trials. The mean age of participants was 63.7±17.6 years, and 372 were female (46.4%). The Margolis index score at baseline was 0 for 320 participants (predicted normal healing); 1 for 334 participants; and 2 for 148 participants (both 1 and 2 predicted slow-to-heal). Overall, 248 (77.5%) of those participants who scored 0 at baseline healed within 24 weeks, compared with 182 (54.5%) of participants who scored 1, and 30 (20.3%) participants who scored 2. The median time-to-healing was 40 (24-62) days, 57 (35-100) days and 86.5 (56-151) days, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.69 and 0.77, respectively, for the 12 and 24 week trials.

CONCLUSION

A simple baseline index identifies participants with normal or slow-to-heal wounds and could be used to demonstrate prognostic balance between treatment groups in trials. This approach could also be used in clinical practice to assist with managing expectations and for early identification of patients who may best benefit from adjuvant treatments.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is currently recommended as a rescue therapy for selected patients in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, there is conflicting evidence regarding its effect on survival and neurological outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether ECPR is superior to standard CPR in refractory OHCA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus) until March 2023. Studies were eligible if they a) were RCTs, and b) compared ECPR vs. standard CPR for OHCA. Outcomes were defined as survival with a favorable neurological status (cerebral performance category 1 or 2) at both the shortest follow-up and at 6 months, and in-hospital mortality. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were undertaken.

RESULTS

Three RCTs, with a total of four hundred and eighteen patients, were included. Compared with standard CPR, ECPR was associated with a non-statistically significant higher rate of survival with a favorable neurological outcome at the shortest follow-up (26.4% vs. 17.2%; RR 1.47 [95% CI 0.91-2.40], P = 0.12) and at 6 months (28.3% vs. 18.6%; RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.88-2.49], P = 0.14). The mean absolute rate of in-hospital mortality was not significantly lower in the ECPR group (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.74-1.07], P = 0.23).

CONCLUSION

ECPR was not associated with a significant improvement in survival with favorable neurologic outcomes in refractory OHCA patients. Nevertheless, these results constitute the rationale for a well-conducted, large-scale RCT, aiming to clarify the effectiveness of ECPR compared to standard CPR.

Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials and Learning Health Systems in Pain Medicine: Opportunities and Challenges

Large randomized clinical trials or aggregates of clinical trials represent the highest levels of clinical evidence because they minimize different sources of confounding and bias. The current review provides an in-depth discussion of the challenges faced and methods we can use to overcome these obstacles to tailor novel designs of pragmatic effectiveness trials to pain medicine. The authors describe their experiences with an open-source learning health system to collect high-quality evidence and conduct pragmatic clinical trials within a busy academic pain center.

Attitudes About Artificially Intelligent Interactive Voice Response Systems Using Amazon Alexa in Cardiovascular Clinics: Insights from the VOICE-COVID-19 Study

The acceptability of artificially intelligent interactive voice response (AI-IVR) systems in cardiovascular research settings is unclear. As a result, we evaluated peoples' attitudes regarding the Amazon Echo Show 8 device when used for electronic data capture in cardiovascular clinics. Participants were recruited following the Voice-Based Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Exposure in Cardiovascular clinics study. Overall, 215 people enrolled and underwent screening (mean age 46.1; 55% females) in the VOICE-COVID study and 58 people consented to participate in a post-screening survey. Following thematic analysis, four key themes affecting AI-IVR acceptability were identified. These were difficulties with communication (44.8%), limitations with available interaction modalities (41.4%), barriers with the development of therapeutic relationships (25.9%), and concerns with universality and accessibility (8.6%). While there are potential concerns with the use of AI-IVR technologies, these systems appeared to be well accepted in cardiovascular clinics. Increased development of these technologies could significantly improve healthcare access and efficiency.

Harmonisation of large-scale, heterogeneous individual participant adverse event data from randomised trials of statin therapy

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of individual-level data from randomised trials are often required to detect clinically worthwhile effects. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration, which includes data from numerous large long-term statin trials, is conducting a review of the effects of statin therapy on all adverse events collected in those trials. This article describes the approaches used and challenges faced to systematically capture and categorise the data.

METHODS

Protocols, statistical analysis plans, case report forms, clinical study reports and datasets were obtained, reviewed and checked. Relevant baseline and follow-up data from each trial was then reorganised into standardised formats based upon the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model. Adverse event data were organised and coded (automatically or, where necessary, manually) according to a common medical dictionary based upon the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.

RESULTS

Data from 23 double-blind statin trials and 5 open-label statin trials were provided, either through direct data transfer or through online access platforms. Together, these trials provided 845 datasets containing over 38 million records relating to 30,495 study variables and 181,973 randomised participants. Of the 46 Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model domains that could potentially have been used to organise the data, the 13 most relevant to the project were identified and utilised, including 6 domains related to post-randomisation adverse events. Nearly 1.2 million adverse events were extracted and mapped to over 45,000 unique adverse event terms. Of these adverse events, 99% were coded to a Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 'lower level term', with the remainder coded to a 'higher level term' or, very rarely, only a 'higher level group term'.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of adverse event data from the large randomised trials of statins, approaches based on common standards for data organisation and classification have provided a resource capable of allowing reliable and rapid evaluation of any previously unknown benefits or hazards of statin therapy.

Platform trials for anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a narrative review

Large randomised trials provide the most reliable evidence of effectiveness of new treatments in clinical practice. However, the time and resources required to complete such trials can be daunting. An overarching clinical trial platform focused on a single condition or type of surgery, aiming to compare several treatments, with an option to stop any or add in new treatment options, can provide greater efficiency. This has the potential to accelerate knowledge acquisition and identify effective, ineffective, or harmful treatments faster. The master protocol of the platform defines the study population(s) and standardised procedures. Ineffective or harmful treatments can be discarded or study drug dose modified during the life cycle of the trial. Other adaptive elements that can be modified include eligibility criteria, required sample size for any comparison(s), randomisation assignment ratio, and the addition of other promising treatment options. There are excellent opportunities for anaesthetists to establish platform trials in perioperative medicine. Platform trials are highly efficient, with the potential to provide quicker answers to important clinical questions that lead to improved patient care.

Trial registration and time to publication in a retrospective cohort of publicly funded randomised controlled trials in New Zealand 1999-2017

OBJECTIVES

To determine how quickly randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) were registered and published, and whether time to publication differed by trial result.

DESIGN

We created a retrospective cohort of trials offered funding from 1999 to 2017 by seeking lists of candidate studies using the Official Information Act 1982. These lists were supplemented by searching the HRC's online research repository and an open-access database on Figshare. One investigator searched for trial registrations and for dissemination using electronic databases, university websites and ResearchGate. One investigator extracted data from the obtained studies and a second investigator independently corroborated the data entry from a 10% random sample.

RESULTS

We identified 258 trials that were offered funding, 252 trials were conducted and 229 (90.9%) were registered, 179 prospectively by the date of the final search (24 March 2022). Overall, 236 trials were completed by the date of the last search and in 209 (88.6%) trials the results had been disseminated, 200 (84.7%) of which were by journal publication. We obtained the results for 214 trials, 91 (42.5%) of which were positive, 120 (56.1%) of which were null and 3 (1.4%) of which were negative. Median time to publication was 22.7 months for positive trials and 21.5 months for combined null or negative trials (log rank test p=0.83). Median time since trial completion in the trials that had not been published was 43.6 months (IQR 17.1-108.2 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2017, almost 9 out of every 10 HRC-funded trials had been registered and a similar proportion of completed trials had been published with no difference in time to publication based on type of result. However, only a slim majority of trials had published within the 2-year time frame set by the WHO.

Effect of statin therapy on muscle symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy is effective for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and is widely prescribed, but there are persisting concerns that statin therapy might frequently cause muscle pain or weakness. We aimed to address these through an individual participant data meta-analysis of all recorded adverse muscle events in large, long-term, randomised, double-blind trials of statin therapy.

METHODS

Randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years, and involved a double-blind comparison of statin versus placebo or of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen. We analysed individual participant data from 19 double-blind trials of statin versus placebo (n=123 940) and four double-blind trials of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen (n=30 724). Standard inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses of the effects on muscle outcomes were conducted according to a prespecified protocol.

FINDINGS

Among 19 placebo-controlled trials (mean age 63 years [SD 8], with 34 533 [27·9%] women, 59 610 [48·1%] participants with previous vascular disease, and 22 925 [18·5%] participants with diabetes), during a weighted average median follow-up of 4·3 years, 16 835 (27·1%) allocated statin versus 16 446 (26·6%) allocated placebo reported muscle pain or weakness (rate ratio [RR] 1·03; 95% CI 1·01-1·06). During year 1, statin therapy produced a 7% relative increase in muscle pain or weakness (1·07; 1·04-1·10), corresponding to an absolute excess rate of 11 (6-16) events per 1000 person-years, which indicates that only one in 15 ([1·07-1·00]/1·07) of these muscle-related reports by participants allocated to statin therapy were actually due to the statin. After year 1, there was no significant excess in first reports of muscle pain or weakness (0·99; 0·96-1·02). For all years combined, more intensive statin regimens (ie, 40-80 mg atorvastatin or 20-40 mg rosuvastatin once per day) yielded a higher RR than less intensive or moderate-intensity regimens (1·08 [1·04-1·13] vs 1·03 [1·00-1·05]) compared with placebo, and a small excess was present (1·05 [0·99-1·12]) for more intensive regimens after year 1. There was no clear evidence that the RR differed for different statins, or in different clinical circumstances. Statin therapy yielded a small, clinically insignificant increase in median creatine kinase values of approximately 0·02 times the upper limit of normal.

INTERPRETATION

Statin therapy caused a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain. Most (>90%) of all reports of muscle symptoms by participants allocated statin therapy were not due to the statin. The small risks of muscle symptoms are much lower than the known cardiovascular benefits. There is a need to review the clinical management of muscle symptoms in patients taking a statin.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research: Summary of Discussions From a Breakout Session

The legitimacy of findings from cancer health economics research depends on study design and methods. A breakout session, Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research, was convened at the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research Conference to discuss 2 commonly used analytic tools for cancer health economics research: observational studies and decision-analytic modeling. Observational studies include analysis of data collected with the primary purpose of supporting economic evaluation or secondary use of data collected for another purpose. Modeling studies develop a parametrized structure, such as a decision tree, to estimate hypothetical impact. Whereas observational studies focus on what has happened and why, modeling studies address what may happen. We summarize the discussion at this breakout session, focusing on 3 key elements of high-quality cancer health economics research: study design, analytical methods, and addressing uncertainty.

Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility

Background

Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials.

Methods

In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis.

Results

A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated.

Conclusions

Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis

BACKGROUND

We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Investigational medicinal products, related costs and hospital pharmacy services for investigator-initiated trials: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Conducting high quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) is challenging and costly. The costs of investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in IITs and the role of hospital pharmacies in the planning of IITs are unclear. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare planned and actual costs of IMPs in Swiss IITs, to examine potential reasons for differences, and to gather stakeholder views about hospital services for IITs.

METHODS

We included all IITs with IMP services from the Basel hospital pharmacy invoiced between January 2014 and June 2020 (n = 24). We documented trial and IMP characteristics including planned and actual IMP costs. Our working definition for a substantial cost difference was that the actual IMP costs were more than 10% higher than the planned IMP costs in a trial. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators, clinical trials unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and qualitatively analyzed transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

For 13 IITs we observed no differences between planned and actual costs of IMPs (median, 11'000 US$; interquartile range [IQR], 8'882-16'302 US$), but for 11 IITs we found cost increases from a median of 11'000 US$ (IQR, 8'922-36'166 US$) to a median over 28'000 US$ (IQR, 13'004-49'777 US$). All multicenter trials and 10 of 11 IITs with patients experienced substantial cost differences. From the interviews we identified four main themes: 1) Patient recruitment and organizational problems were identified as main reasons for cost differences, 2) higher actual IMP costs were bearable for most investigators, 3) IMP services for IITs were not a priority for the hospital pharmacy, and 4) closer collaboration between clinical trial unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and sufficient staff for IITs at the hospital pharmacy could improve IMP services.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicenter IITs enrolling patients are particularly at risk for higher IMP costs than planned. These trials are more difficult to plan and logistically challenging, which leads to delays and expiring IMP shelf-lives. IMP services of hospital pharmacies are important for IITs in Switzerland, but need to be further developed.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID‐19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia.

Main recommendations

The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID‐19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID‐19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease‐directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID‐19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care.

Changes in management as result of the guideline

The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID‐19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in people with recently symptomatic, severe carotid artery stenosis. However, there are significant perioperative risks that may be minimised by performing the operation under local rather than general anaesthetics. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1996, and previously updated in 2004, 2008, and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether carotid endarterectomy under local anaesthetic: 1) reduces the risk of perioperative stroke and death compared with general anaesthetic; 2) reduces the complication rate (other than stroke) following carotid endarterectomy; and 3) is acceptable to individuals and surgeons.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers (to February 2021). We also reviewed reference lists of articles identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of local anaesthetics to general anaesthetics for people having carotid endarterectomy were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We calculated a pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the following outcomes that occurred within 30 days of surgery: stroke, death, ipsilateral stroke, stroke or death, myocardial infarction, local haemorrhage, and arteries shunted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs involving 4839 participants, of which 3526 were obtained from the single largest trial (GALA). The main findings from our meta-analysis showed that, within 30 days of operation, neither incidence of stroke nor death were significantly different between local and general anaesthesia. Of these, the incidence of stroke in the local and general anaesthesia groups was 3.2% and 3.5%, respectively (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.26; P = 0.58; 13 studies, 4663 participants; low-quality evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke under both types of anaesthesia was 3.1% (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48; P = 0.89; 2 studies, 3733 participants; low-quality evidence). The incidence of stroke or death in the local anaesthesia group was 3.5%, while stroke or death incidence was 4.1% in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16; P = 0.31; 11 studies, 4391 participants; low-quality evidence). A lower rate of death was observed in the local anaesthetic group but evidence was of low quality (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08; 12 studies, 4421 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of stroke and death were not convincingly different between local and general anaesthesia for people undergoing carotid endarterectomy. The current evidence supports the choice of either approach. Further high-quality studies are still needed as the evidence is of limited reliability.

Evolution of Evidence-Based Medicine in Stroke

The introduction and evolution of evidence-based stroke medicine has realized major advances in our knowledge about stroke, methods of medical research, and patient outcomes that continue to complement traditional individual patient care. It is humbling to recall the state of knowledge and scientific endeavour of our forebears who were unaware of what we know now and yet pursued the highest standards for evaluating and delivering effective stroke care. The science of stroke medicine has evolved from pathophysiological theory to empirical testing. Progress has been steady, despite inevitable disappointments and cul-de-sacs, and has occasionally been punctuated by sensational breakthroughs, such as the advent of reperfusion therapies guided by imaging.

Opportunities for the use of routinely collected data for the generation of large randomized evidence in Colombia

Randomized clinical trials are the cornerstone design for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of health interventions. Furthermore, morbidity and mortality rates could be reduced if evidence of better interventions is sought and used to inform medical practice. However, only small to moderate, yet worthwhile, effects can be expected from such interventions. Therefore, moderate random error and moderate biases must be avoided during the design, conduct and analysis of trials. Routinely collected data, such as vital statistics, hospital episode statistics and surveillance data, could be used to enhance recruitment and follow-up a large number of patients, reducing both random error and moderate biases. Here, we discuss the opportunities and challenges for the use of these data for clinical studies in Colombia.

Making trials part of good clinical care: lessons from the RECOVERY trial

When COVID-19 hit the UK in early 2020, there were no known treatments for a condition that results in the death of around one in four patients hospitalised with this disease. Around the world, possible treatments were administered to huge numbers of patients, without any reliable assessments of safety and efficacy. The rapid generation of high-quality evidence was vital. RECOVERY is a streamlined, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, which was set up in response to this challenge. As of April 2021, over 39,000 patients have been enrolled from 178 hospital sites in the UK. Within 100 days of its initiation, RECOVERY demonstrated that dexamethasone improves survival for patients with severe disease; a result that was rapidly implemented in the UK and internationally saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Importantly, it also showed that other widely used treatments (such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) have no meaningful benefit for hospitalised patients. This was only possible through randomisation of large numbers of patients and the adoption of streamlined and pragmatic procedures focused on quality, together with widespread collaboration focused on a single goal. RECOVERY illustrates how clinical trials and healthcare can be integrated, even in a pandemic. This approach provides new opportunities to generate the evidence needed for high-quality healthcare not only for a pandemic but for the many other conditions that place a burden on patients and the healthcare system.

Old drugs for a new indication: a review of chloroquine and analogue in COVID-19 treatment

As an innovative therapeutic strategy, drug repurposing affords old, approved, and already established drugs a chance at new indications. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanied urgency for a lasting treatment, drug repurposing has come in handy to stem the debilitating effects of the disease. Among other therapeutic options currently in clinical trials, chloroquine (CQ) and the hydroxylated analogue, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been frontline therapeutic options in most formal and informal clinical settings with varying degrees of efficacy against this life-threatening disease. Their status in randomized clinical trials is related to the biochemical and pharmacological profiles as validated by in vitro, in vivo and case studies. With the aim to bear a balance for their use in the long run, this review not only synopsizes findings from recent studies on the degrees of efficacy and roles of CQ/HCQ as potential anti-COVID-19 agents but also highlights our perspectives for their consideration in rational drug repositioning and use.

Practices and Attitudes of Swiss Stakeholders Regarding Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Funding Acquisition and Cost Management

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are an essential method of evaluating health care interventions and a cornerstone for evidence-based health care. However, RCTs have become increasingly complex and costly, which is particularly challenging for independent investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs). IICTs have an essential role in clinical research, and it is important that efforts are made to ensure IICTs are adequately funded and are conducted cost-effectively.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this qualitative study, interviews were conducted in Switzerland between February and August 2020. The purposive sample comprised 48 stakeholders from 4 different groups: primary investigators (n = 27), funders and sponsors (n = 9), clinical trial support organizations (n = 6), and ethics committee members (n = 6).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Practices and attitudes of stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management were assessed using individual semistructured qualitative interviews. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

After interviews with 48 IICT stakeholders (75% male presenting), these participants identified a systemic problem of IICTs being underfunded, which can lead to compromises being made regarding the quality and conduct of IICTs. Participants identified 2 overarching and interconnected groups of reasons why IICTs in Switzerland are regularly underfunded. First, it was reported that IICT budget estimations are often inaccurate because of poor planning and preparation, unforeseeable events, investigators intentionally underestimating budgets, and limited budget assessment and oversight. Second, with the exception of a specific IICT funding program by the Swiss National Science Foundation, it was reported that limited funding sources and unrealistic expectation of funders led to underlying challenges in getting IICTs fully funded. A number of measures that could help reduce the underfunding of IICTs were identified, including improving the support of investigators and IICTs, strengthening networking and guidance, harmonizing and simplifying bureaucracy, and increasing public funding of IICTs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights the inadequate expertise of Swiss stakeholders to correctly, systematically, and reproducibly calculate RCT budgets and the need for transparency on trial costs as well as training in budgeting practices. Limited financial resources for academic clinical research and issues regarding the professional planning and conduct of IICTs are persistent issues that many other countries also face.

The Future of Meat: Health Impact Assessment with Randomized Evidence

Massive animal farming for meat production poses major problems in terms of resource use, environmental impact, and biodiversity. Furthermore, excessive meat consumption has been associated with multiple deleterious health consequences. However, more and better-designed randomized trials are needed to increase the level of evidence on the health impacts of meat. Novel meat alternatives, such as plant- and cell-based meat, are much less impactful to the environment and might replace traditional animal meat in the future, but, despite promising early data, the health consequences of these novel products need further study. This manuscript focuses on the health impacts of meat over 3 main sections: 1) overview of the evidence highlighting the association of meat consumption with health; 2) novel alternatives to meat, including plant-based and cell-based alternatives; and 3) examine the rationale for randomized studies to evaluate the effects of the novel meat alternatives compared with the standard animal meat.

A meta-research study revealed several challenges in obtaining placebos for investigator-initiated drug trials

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the kind of placebos used in investigator-initiated randomized controlled trials (RCTs), from where they are obtained, and the hurdles that exist in obtaining them.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched for recently published noncommercial, placebo-controlled randomized drug trials. Corresponding authors were invited to participate in an online survey.

RESULTS

From 423 eligible articles, 109 (26%) corresponding authors (partially) participated. Twenty-one of 102 (21%) authors reported that the placebos used were not matching (correctly labeled in only one publication). The main sources in obtaining placebos were hospital pharmacies (32 of 107; 30%) and the manufacturer of the study drug (28 of 107; 26%). RCTs with a hypothesis in the interest of the manufacturer of the study drug were more likely to have obtained placebos from the drug manufacturer (18 of 49; 37% vs. 5 of 29; 17%). Median costs for placebos and packaging were US$ 58,286 (IQR US$ 2,428- US$ 160,770; n = 24), accounting for a median of 10.3% of the overall trial budget.

CONCLUSION

Although using matching placebos is widely accepted as a basic practice in RCTs, there seems to be no standard source to acquire them. Obtaining placebos requires substantial resources, and using nonmatching placebos is common.

The Decline of the Experimental Paradigm During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Template for the Future

The current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exerted an unprecedented impact across the globe. As a consequence of this overwhelming catastrophe, long-established prevailing medical and scientific paradigms have been disrupted. The response of the scientific community, medical journals, media, and some politicians has been far from ideal. The present manuscript discusses the failure of the scientific enterprise in its initiatives to address the COVID-19 outbreak as a consequence of the disarray attributable to haste and urgency. To enhance conveying our message, this manuscript is organized into 3 interrelated sections: 1) the accelerated pace of publications coupled with a dysfunctional review process; 2) failure of the clinical trial enterprise; 3) propagation of misleading information by the media. In response we propose a template comprising a focus on randomized controlled clinical trials, and an insistence on responsible journal publication, and enumeration of policies to deal with social media-propagated news. We conclude with a reconsideration of the appropriate role of academic medicine and journals.

Promoting social capital, self-management and health literacy in older adults through a group-based intervention delivered in low-income urban areas: results of the randomized trial AEQUALIS

BACKGROUND

Evidence is scarce on how to promote health and decrease cumulative inequalities for disadvantaged older people. Downstream complex interventions focusing on intermediate factors (self-management, health literacy and social capital) may have the potential to mitigate the inequitable impacts of social determinants in health. The aim of the AEQUALIS study was to assess the effectiveness of a group-based intervention to improve self-perceived health as indicator of health inequality.

METHODS

Pragmatic randomised clinical trial addressed to older adults (≥ 60 years) living in urban disadvantaged areas with low self-perceived health. The intervention was delivered in primary care settings and community assets between 2015 and 2017 and consisted in 12 weekly sessions. The primary outcome was self-perceived health assessed in two ways: with the first item of the SF-12 questionnaire, and with the EQ-5D visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, social capital, self-management, mental health and use of health services. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post intervention and follow-up at 9 months after the end of the intervention.

RESULTS

390 people were allocated to the intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG) and 194 participants and 164 were included in the data analysis, respectively. Self perceived health as primary outcome assessed with SF-12-1 was not specifically affected by the intervention, but with the EQ-5D visual analog scale showed a significant increase at one-year follow-up only in the IG (MD=4.80, 95%CI [1.09, 8.52]). IG group improved health literacy in terms of a better understanding of medical information (- 0.62 [- 1.10, - 0.13]). The mental component of SF-12 improved (3.77 [1.82, 5.73]), and depressive symptoms decreased at post-intervention (- 1.26 [- 1.90, - 0.63]), and at follow-up (- 0.95 [- 1.62, - 0.27]). The use of antidepressants increased in CG at the follow-up (1.59 [0.33, 2.86]), while it remained stable in the IG.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a group intervention with a strong social component, conducted in primary health care and community assets, shows promising effects on mental health and can be used as a strategy for health promotion among older adults in urban disadvantaged areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02733523 . Registered 11 April 2016 - Retrospectively registered.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

The pursuit of a clearer understanding of the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AFib) and the development of new technology has resulted in a surge of interest in the surgical ablation for AFib. Here, we report our 8-year experience in the surgical treatment and management of AFib alongside, evaluating the cost-effectiveness in southern Mainland China over a 1-year follow-up.

Methods

Data of 3,068 patients from March 2011 through June 2019 was retrospectively extracted from The Provincial National Cardiac Database of Xiangya Second Hospital. The activities considered (and costs calculated) were outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, and drug treatment. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were also carried out to assess whether concomitant AFib correction procedures increase risk in patients, or improve patient's QoL.

Results

A total of 3,068 patients completed the questionnaires at a minimum of one time-point during the follow-up. The total cost was combined to obtain incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The total costs of the AFib catheter ablation group were remarkably higher compared to surgery as usual group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $76,513,227 (¥542,287,667) per QALY, with an acceptability line graph for cost at 43%.

Conclusions

AFib is an extraordinarily costly and worrisome public health problem. Precision medicine is vital as it provides a platform for the clinical translation of targeted interventions that are designed to help treat and prevent AFib. Thus, to improve the QoL expectancy outcome(s), both therapeutic and surgical interventions should be aimed at addressing the underlying heart disease rather than restoring sinus rhythm.

Early-Life Nutrition Interventions and Associated Long-Term Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Early-life nutrition interventions can have lifelong cardiometabolic benefits. Most evidence on this topic is derived from observational studies. We evaluated the association of randomized controlled nutritional trials in early life and long-term cardiometabolic outcomes. Through literature search of PubMed, CABI Global Health, Embase, and Cochrane, with manual reference check and weekly alert from PubMed, we identified 8312 records, and included 53 records from 40 cohorts in 21 countries. The total number of participants was 33,551. Interventions were initiated as early as conception, and the longest until 7 y (except 1 study from infancy to 20 y). The cohorts were followed up for between 3 and 73 y. We identified 7 types of interventions (protein-energy supplements, long-chain PUFAs, single micronutrient, multiple micronutrients, infant and young child feeding, dietary counseling, and other) and 4 categories of cardiometabolic outcomes (biomarkers, cardiovascular, body size and composition, and subclinical/clinical outcomes). Most findings were null. Fasting glucose concentration was 0.04 mmol/L lower (95% CI: -0.05, -0.02 mmol/L; I2 = 0%) in the intervention groups than in the control groups (15 studies). BMI (kg/m2) was 0.20 higher (95% CI: 0.12, 0.28; I2 = 54%) in the intervention groups than control groups (14 studies). No significant effect was observed for total cholesterol (12 studies) or blood pressure (17 studies). Ongoing and personalized dietary counseling was associated with lower glucose and cholesterol, better endothelial function, and reduced risk of metabolic syndrome. The timing of intervention mattered, with earlier initiation conferring greater benefit (improved lipid profile and marginally lower glucose concentration) based on 2 studies. In sum, glucose concentration was lower following early-life nutrition interventions, but there is a risk of unintended consequences, including higher BMI. Maternal and child nutrition interventions must be evidence-based and tailored to each population to promote long-term cardiometabolic health.

Understanding the use of observational and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine

The availability of large datasets from multiple sources [e.g. registries, biobanks, electronic health records (EHRs), claims or billing databases, implantable devices, wearable sensors, and mobile apps], coupled with advances in computing and analytic technologies, have provided new opportunities for conducting innovative health research. Equally, improved digital access to health information has facilitated the conduct of efficient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) upon which clinical management decisions can be based, for instance, by permitting the identification of eligible patients for recruitment and/or linkage for follow-up via their EHRs. Given these advances in cardiovascular data science and the complexities they behold, it is important that health professionals have clarity on the appropriate use and interpretation of observational, so-called 'real-world', and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine. The Cardiovascular Roundtable of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) held a workshop to explore the future of RCTs and the current and emerging opportunities for gathering and exploiting complex observational datasets in cardiovascular research. The aim of this article is to provide a perspective on the appropriate use of randomized and observational data and to outline the ESC plans for supporting the collection and availability of clinical data to monitor and improve the quality of care of patients with cardiovascular disease in Europe and provide an infrastructure for undertaking pragmatic RCTs. Moreover, the ESC continues to campaign for greater engagement amongst regulators, industry, patients, and health professionals in the development and application of a more efficient regulatory framework that is able to take maximal advantage of new opportunities for improving the design and efficiency of observational studies and RCT in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Transparent and accurate reporting is essential for readers to adequately interpret the results of a study. Journals can play a vital role in improving the reporting of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We describe an RCT to evaluate our hypothesis that asking peer reviewers to check whether the most important and poorly reported CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) items are adequately reported will result in higher adherence to CONSORT guidelines in published RCTs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Manuscripts presenting the primary results of RCTs submitted to participating journals will be randomised to either the intervention group (peer reviewers will receive a reminder and short explanation of the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT items; they will be asked to check if these items are reported in the submitted manuscript) or a control group (usual journal practice). The primary outcome will be the mean proportion of the 10 items that are adequately reported in the published articles. Peer reviewers and manuscript authors will not be informed of the study hypothesis, design or intervention. Outcomes will be assessed in duplicate from published articles by two data extractors (at least one blinded to the intervention). We will enrol eligible manuscripts until a minimum of 83 articles per group (166 in total) are published.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This pragmatic RCT was approved by the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford (R62779/RE001). If this intervention is effective, it could be implemented by all medical journals without requiring large additional resources at journal level. Findings will be disseminated through presentations in relevant conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This trial is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c4hn8).

Effects of blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular events, in the context of regression to the mean: a systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical relevance of regression to the mean for clinical trials and clinical practice.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched until February 2018 for randomized trials of BP lowering with over 1000 patient-years follow-up per group. We estimated baseline mean BP, follow-up mean (usual) BP amongst patients grouped by 10 mmHg strata of baseline BP, and assessed effects of BP lowering on coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke according to these BP levels.

RESULTS

Eighty-six trials (349 488 participants), with mean follow-up of 3.7 years, were included. Most mean BP change was because of regression to the mean rather than treatment. At high baseline BP levels, even after rigorous hypertension diagnosis, downwards regression to the mean caused much of the fall in BP. At low baseline BP levels, upwards regression to the mean increased BP levels, even in treatment groups. Overall, a BP reduction of 6/3 mmHg lowered CHD by 14% (95% CI 11-17%) and stroke by 18% (15-22%), and these treatment effects occurred at follow-up BP levels much closer to the mean than baseline BP levels. In particular, more evidence was available in the SBP 130-139 mmHg range than any other range. Benefits were apparent in numerous high-risk patient groups with baseline mean SBP less than 140 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice should focus less on pretreatment BP levels, which rarely predict future untreated BP levels or rule out capacity to benefit from BP lowering in high cardiovascular risk patients. Instead, focus should be on prompt, empirical treatment to maintain lower BP for those with high BP and/or high risk.

Novel Clinical Trial Designs to Improve the Efficiency of Research

SUMMARY

Large randomized trials provide the highest level of clinical evidence. However, enrolling large numbers of randomized patients across numerous study sites is expensive and often takes years. There will never be enough conventional clinical trials to address the important questions in medicine. Efficient alternatives to conventional randomized trials that preserve protections against bias and confounding are thus of considerable interest. A common feature of novel trial designs is that they are pragmatic and facilitate enrollment of large numbers of patients at modest cost. This article presents trial designs including cluster designs, real-time automated enrollment, and practitioner-preference approaches. Then various adaptive designs that improve trial efficiency are presented. And finally, the article discusses the advantages of embedding randomized trials within registries.

Investigating modifications to participant information materials to improve recruitment into a large randomized trial

Background

Large randomized trials are the best method to test the efficacy and safety of treatments expected to have moderate effects. We observed a significant decline in potential participants’ response to mailed invitations to participate in such trials over a 10-year period and investigated possible reasons behind this and potential modifications to the invitation process to mitigate it.

Methods

Participants who declined to participate in the HPS2-THRIVE trial were asked to give a reason. Formal focus groups were conducted to explore the reasons that potential participants might have for not participating. In addition, two embedded randomized comparisons around the timing of provision of the full participant information leaflet (PIL) and its style were conducted during recruitment into this large randomized trial. HPS2-THRIVE is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00461630).

Results

The commonest reason given for declining invitations related to mobility and transportation (despite the offer of travel expenses). Both the focus groups and potential participants who declined their invitation indicated concern about side-effects of the treatment (as presented in the PIL) as a reason for declining the invitation. Neither delaying provision of the full PIL until the potential participant attended the trial clinic, nor modifying the style of the PIL improved the proportion of potential participants entering the trial: odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.17) and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94–1.28), respectively. However, modifying the style of the PIL did increase the proportion of participants attending screening appointments (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03–1.33).

Conclusions

Many reasons given for not participating in trials are not tractable to individual trials. However, modification of the PIL does show potential to modestly improve participation. If further trials could identify similar simple interventions that were beneficial, their net effects could substantially improve trial participation and facilitate recruitment into large trials.

Statin Safety and Associated Adverse Events: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

One in 4 Americans >40 years of age takes a statin to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and other complications of atherosclerotic disease. The most effective statins produce a mean reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 55% to 60% at the maximum dosage, and 6 of the 7 marketed statins are available in generic form, which makes them affordable for most patients. Primarily using data from randomized controlled trials, supplemented with observational data where necessary, this scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of statin safety and tolerability. The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions such as chronic disease of the kidney and liver, human immunodeficiency viral infection, and organ transplants. The risk of statin-induced serious muscle injury, including rhabdomyolysis, is <0.1%, and the risk of serious hepatotoxicity is ≈0.001%. The risk of statin-induced newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus is ≈0.2% per year of treatment, depending on the underlying risk of diabetes mellitus in the population studied. In patients with cerebrovascular disease, statins possibly increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke; however, they clearly produce a greater reduction in the risk of atherothrombotic stroke and thus total stroke, as well as other cardiovascular events. There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendonitis. In US clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase. In contrast, in randomized clinical trials, the difference in the incidence of muscle symptoms without significantly raised creatinine kinase in statin-treated compared with placebo-treated participants is <1%, and it is even smaller (0.1%) for patients who discontinued treatment because of such muscle symptoms. This suggests that muscle symptoms are usually not caused by pharmacological effects of the statin. Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority. Overall, in patients for whom statin treatment is recommended by current guidelines, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

Kidney disease trials for the 21st century: innovations in design and conduct

Compared to other specialties, nephrology has reported relatively few clinical trials, and most of these are too small to detect moderate treatment effects. Consequently, interventions that are commonly used by nephrologists have not been adequately tested and some may be ineffective or harmful. More randomized trials are urgently needed to address important clinical questions in patients with kidney disease. The use of robust surrogate markers may accelerate early-phase drug development. However, scientific innovations in trial conduct developed by other specialties should also be adopted to improve trial quality and enable more, larger trials in kidney disease to be completed in the current era of burdensome regulation and escalating research costs. Examples of such innovations include utilizing routinely collected health-care data and disease-specific registries to identify and invite potential trial participants, and for long-term follow-up; use of prescreening to facilitate rapid recruitment of participants; use of pre-randomization run-in periods to improve participant adherence and assess responses to study interventions prior to randomization; and appropriate use of statistics to monitor studies and analyse their results. Nephrology is well positioned to harness such innovations due to its advanced use of electronic health-care records and the development of disease-specific registries. Adopting a population approach and efficient trial conduct along with challenging unscientific regulation may increase the number of definitive clinical trials in nephrology and improve the care of current and future patients.

Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Adequate reporting is crucial in full-text publications but even more so in abstracts because they are the most frequently read part of a publication. In 2008, an extension for abstracts of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-A) statement was published, defining which items should be reported in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, we compared the adherence of RCT abstracts to CONSORT-A before and after the publication of CONSORT-A.

METHODS

RCTs published in the five surgical journals with the highest impact factor were identified through PubMed for 2005-2007 and 2014-2016. Adherence to 15 CONSORT-A items and two additional items for abstracts of non-pharmacological trials was assessed in duplicate. We compared the overall adherence to CONSORT-A between the two time periods using an unpaired t test and explored adherence to specific items.

RESULTS

A total of 192 and 164 surgical RCT abstracts were assessed (2005-2007 and 2014-2016, respectively). In the pre-CONSORT-A phase, the mean score of adequately reported items was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.90-6.38) and 8.11 in the post-CONSORT-A phase (95% CI 7.83-8.39; mean difference 1.97, 95% CI 1.60-2.34; p < 0.0001). The comparison of individual items indicated a significant improvement in 9 of the 15 items. The three least reported items in the post-CONSORT-A phase were randomization (2.4%), blinding (13.4%), and funding (0.0%). Specific items for non-pharmacological trials were rarely reported (approximately 10%).

CONCLUSION

The reporting in abstracts of surgical RCTs has improved after the implementation of CONSORT-A. More importantly, there is still ample room for improvement.

Cardiovascular research in France: Evolution of scientific activities and production over the last decade

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death worldwide, and fruitful research is needed for future advances in this field.

AIMS

To analyse the scientific production and vitality of French cardiovascular clinical research, and its evolution over the last decade.

METHODS

We first used Lab Times online data obtained through the Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters, Toronto, ON, Canada), then the PubMed database (National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI], Bethesda, MD, USA), for studies published between 2005 and 2015 in the multidisciplinary and cardiology journals with the highest impact factors. French abstracts submitted and accepted at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress were provided directly by the ESC. The number of cardiovascular projects was analysed through the http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov database and the French site for government-funded projects, over the decade from 2008 to 2017.

RESULTS

Overall, France was ranked fifth in Europe and eighth worldwide for CVD publications. During the 10-year period from 2005 to 2015, French publications accounted for 0.2-0.3% of articles in top multidisciplinary journals and 2% of articles in top cardiology journals. We observed a steady decrease in French abstract submissions at the ESC congress (from 5% to 3.5% in 10 years), and in 2017, France was ranked eighth in Europe. Across European countries, France has been ranked first for declared cardiovascular research on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov over the last 3 years, for both interventional and observational studies. Regarding the Hospital Programme of Clinical Research, heart ranked second after neurosciences.

CONCLUSIONS

France is very well represented in terms of new CVD projects, but actual French scientific production scores poorly. Investing in CVD research is a priority to increase the level of publication and to compete with other leading countries.

The nocebo effect as a source of bias in the assessment of treatment effects

The term nocebo effect refers to the harmful outcomes that result from people’s negative beliefs, anticipations, or experiences related to the treatment rather than the pharmacological properties of the treatment. These outcomes may include a worsening of symptoms, a lack of expected improvement, or adverse events, and they may occur after the active treatment and the placebo that is supposed to imitate it.  The nocebo effect is always unwanted and may distort estimates of treatment effectiveness and safety; moreover, it may cause discontinuation of therapy or withdrawal from a trial.

The nocebo effect may be unintentionally evoked by the explanations given by healthcare professionals during a clinical consultation or consent procedures, or by information from other patients, the media, or the Internet. Moreover, it may be a consequence of previous bad experiences with the treatment, through learning and conditioning, and the conditioning may happen without patients’ conscious awareness. In trial settings, a study design, for example lack of blinding, may introduce bias from the nocebo effect.

Unlike the placebo effect, which is usually taken into consideration while interpreting treatment outcomes and controlled for in clinical trials, the nocebo effect is under-recognised by clinical researchers and clinicians. This is worrying, because the nocebo phenomenon is common and may have potentially negative consequences for the results of clinical treatment and trials. It is therefore important that doctors and medical researchers consider any potential nocebo effect while assessing the treatment effect and try to minimise it through careful choice and phrasing of treatment-related information given to patients.