Baseline characteristics and statistical power in randomized controlled trials: Selection, prognostic targeting, or covariate adjustment?*:

Parent-focused prevention of adolescent health risk behavior: Study protocol for a multisite cluster-randomized trial implemented in pediatric primary care

Evidence-based parenting interventions play a crucial role in the sustained reduction of adolescent behavioral health concerns. Guiding Good Choices (GGC) is a 5-session universal anticipatory guidance curriculum for parents of early adolescents that has been shown to reduce substance use, depression symptoms, and delinquent behavior. Although prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of evidence-based parenting interventions at achieving sustained reductions in adolescent behavioral health concerns, public health impact has been limited by low rates of uptake in community and agency settings. Pediatric primary care is an ideal setting for implementing and scaling parent-focused prevention programs as these settings have a broad reach, and prevention programs implemented within them have the potential to achieve population-level impact. The current investigation, Guiding Good Choices for Health (GGC4H), tests the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing GGC in 3 geographically and socioeconomically diverse large integrated healthcare systems. This pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial will compare GGC parenting intervention to usual pediatric primary care practice, and will include approximately 3750 adolescents; n = 1875 GGC intervention and n = 1875 usual care. The study team hypothesizes that adolescents whose parents are randomized into the GGC intervention arm will show reductions in substance use initiation, the study's primary outcomes, and other secondary (e.g., depression symptoms, substance use prevalence) and exploratory outcomes (e.g., health services utilization, anxiety symptoms). The investigative team anticipates that the implementation of GGC within pediatric primary care clinics will successfully fill an unmet need for effective preventive parenting interventions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.govNCT04040153.

Prognostic Research in Traumatic Brain Injury: Markers, Modeling, and Methodological Principles

Prognostic assessment in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is embedded deeply in clinical care. Considering the limitations of current prognostic indicators, there is increasing interest in understanding the role of new biomarkers, and in finding other prognostic indicators of long-term outcomes following TBI. New prognostic indicators may result in the development of more accurate prediction models that could be useful for both risk stratification and clinical decision making. We aimed to review methodological issues and provide tentative guidelines for prognostic research in TBI. Prognostic factor research focuses on the role of a specific patient or disease-related characteristic in relation to outcome. Typically, univariable relations of the prognostic factor are studied, followed by analyses adjusting for other variables related to the outcome. Following existing guidelines, we emphasize the importance of transparent reporting of patient and specimen characteristics, study design, clinical end-points, and statistical analysis. Prognostic model research considers combinations of predictors, with challenges for model specification, estimation, evaluation, validation, and presentation. We highlight modern approaches and opportunities related to missing values, exploration of non-linear effects, and assessing between-study heterogeneity. Prognostic research in TBI can be improved if key methodological principles are adhered to and when research is performed in collaboration among multiple centers to ensure generalizability.

Development of a Prognostic Model to Predict Mortality after Traumatic Brain Injury in Intensive Care Setting in a Developing Country

Objectives  We aimed to develop a prognostic model for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to the neurosurgery intensive care unit (ICU) of our institute.

Materials and Methods  The clinical and computed tomography scan data of consecutive patients admitted after a diagnosis TBI in ICU were reviewed. Construction of the model was done by using all the variables of Corticosteroid Randomization after Significant Head Injury and International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI models. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality.

Results  A total of 243 patients with TBI were admitted to ICU during the study period. The in-hospital mortality was 15.3%. On multivariate analysis, the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) at admission, hypoxia, hypotension, and obliteration of the third ventricle/basal cisterns were significantly associated with mortality. Patients with hypoxia had eight times, with hypotensions 22 times, and with obliteration of the third ventricle/basal cisterns three times more chance of death. The TBI score was developed as a sum of individual points assigned as follows: GCS score 3 to 4 (+2 points), 5 to 12 (+1), hypoxia (+1), hypotension (+1), and obliteration third ventricle/basal cistern (+1). The mortality was 0% for a score of “0” and 85% for a score of “4.”

Conclusion  The outcome of patients treated in ICU was based on common admission variables. A simple clinical grading score allows risk stratification of patients with TBI admitted in ICU.

Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barré syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients severely affected with the syndrome are given a second intravenous immunoglobulin dose (SID), although it has not been proven effective. We aimed to investigate whether a SID is effective in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a predicted poor outcome.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SID-GBS), we included patients (≥12 years) with Guillain-Barré syndrome admitted to one of 59 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included on the first day of standard intravenous immunoglobulin treatment (2 g/kg over 5 days). Only patients with a poor prognosis (score of ≥6) according to the modified Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome Score were randomly assigned, via block randomisation stratified by centre, to SID (2 g/kg over 5 days) or to placebo, 7-9 days after inclusion. Patients, outcome adjudicators, monitors, and the steering committee were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score 4 weeks after inclusion. All patients in whom allocated trial medication was started were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR 2224/NL2107.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 16, 2010, and June 5, 2018, 327 of 339 patients assessed for eligibility were included. 112 had a poor prognosis. Of those, 93 patients with a poor prognosis were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 (53%) received SID and 44 (47%) received placebo. The adjusted common odds ratio for improvement on the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score at 4 weeks was 1·4 (95% CI 0·6-3·3; p=0·45). Patients given SID had more serious adverse events (35% vs 16% in the first 30 days), including thromboembolic events, than those in the placebo group. Four patients died in the intervention group (13-24 weeks after randomisation).

INTERPRETATION

Our study does not provide evidence that patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a poor prognosis benefit from a second intravenous immunoglobulin course; moreover, it entails a risk of serious adverse events. Therefore, a second intravenous immunoglobulin course should not be considered for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome because of a poor prognosis. The results indicate the need for treatment trials with other immune modulators in patients severely affected by Guillain-Barré syndrome.

FUNDING

Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds and Sanquin Plasma Products.