Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations

Treating severe paediatric asthma with mepolizumab or omalizumab: a protocol for the TREAT randomised non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

A minority of school-aged children with asthma have persistent poor control and experience frequent asthma attacks despite maximal prescribed maintenance therapy. These children have higher morbidity and risk of death. The first add-on biologic therapy, omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks immunoglobulin (Ig)E, was licensed for children with severe asthma in 2005. While omalizumab is an effective treatment, non-response is common. A second biologic, mepolizumab which blocks interleukin 5 and targets eosinophilic inflammation, was licensed in 2018, but the licence was granted by extrapolation of adult clinical trial data to children. This non-inferiority (NI) trial will determine whether mepolizumab is as efficacious as omalizumab in reducing asthma attacks in children with severe therapy resistant asthma (STRA) and refractory difficult asthma (DA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an ongoing multicentre 1:1 randomised NI open-label trial of mepolizumab and omalizumab. Up to 150 children and young people (CYP) aged 6-17 years with severe asthma will be recruited from specialist paediatric severe asthma centres in the UK. Prior to randomisation, children will be monitored for medication adherence for up to 16 weeks to determine STRA and refractory DA diagnoses. Current prescribing recommendations of serum IgE and blood eosinophils will not influence eligibility or enrolment. The primary outcome is the 52-week asthma attack rate. Bayesian analysis using clinician-elicited prior distributions will be used to calculate the posterior probability that mepolizumab is not inferior to omalizumab. Secondary outcomes include Composite Asthma Severity Index, Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, lung function measures (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), bronchodilator reversibility), fractional exhaled nitric oxide, Asthma Control Test (ACT), health outcomes EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and optimal serum IgE and blood eosinophil levels that may predict a response to therapy. These outcomes will be analysed in a frequentist framework using longitudinal models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee REC Number 19/SC/0634 and had Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT 2019-004085-17). All parents/legal guardians will give informed consent for their child to participate in the trial, and CYP will give assent to participate. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences and disseminated via our patient and public involvement partners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12109108; EudraCT Number: 2019-004085-17.

A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader.

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public.

METHODS

We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI.

RESULTS

The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups.

DISCUSSION

We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.