Trials: the next 50 years. Large scale randomised evidence of moderate benefits

To guide future practice, perinatal trials should be much larger, simpler and less fragile with close to 100% ascertainment of mortality and other key outcomes

The Australian Placental Transfusion Study (APTS) randomised 1,634 fetuses to delayed (≥60 s) versus immediate (≤10 s) clamping of the umbilical cord. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses, including this and similar trials, show that delaying clamping in preterm infants reduces mortality and need for blood transfusions. Amongst 1,531 infants in APTS followed up at two years, aiming to delay clamping for 60 s or more reduced the relative risk of the primary composite outcome of death or disability by 17% (p = 0.01). However, this result is fragile because nominal statistical significance (p < 0.05) would be abolished by only 2 patients switching from a non-event to an event, and the primary composite outcome was missing in 112 patients (7%). To achieve more robust evidence, any future trials should emulate the large, simple trials co-ordinated from Oxford which reliably identified moderate, incremental improvements in mortality in tens of thousands of participants, with <1% missing data. Those who fund, regulate, and conduct trials that aim to change practice should repay the trust of those who consent to participate by doing everything possible to minimise missing data for key outcomes.

Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials

BACKGROUND

The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont Report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise.

RESULTS

The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged, and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

Reporting transparency and completeness in trials: Paper 4 - reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using routinely collected electronic records - room for improvement

OBJECTIVE

To describe characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), including completeness and transparency of reporting assessed against the 2021 CONSORT Extension for RCTs Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

MEDLINE and Cochrane Methodology Register were searched for a sample of RCTs published from 2011-2018. Completeness of reporting was assessed in a random sample using a pre-defined coding form.

RESULTS

Of the 183 RCT publications identified, 122 (67%) used EHRs to identify eligible participants, 139 (76%) used the EHR as part of the intervention and 137 (75%) to ascertain outcomes. When 60 publications were evaluated against the CONSORT 2010 item and the corresponding extension for the 8 modified items, four items were 'adequately reported' for most trials. Five new reporting items were identified for the CONSORT-ROUTINE extension; when evaluated, one was 'adequately reported', three were reported 'inadequately or not at all', the other 'partially'. There were, however, some encouraging signs with adequate and partial reporting of many important items, including descriptions of trial design, the consent process, outcome ascertainment and interpretation.

CONCLUSION

Aspects of RCTs using EHRs are sub-optimally reported. Uptake of the CONSORT-ROUTINE Extension may improve reporting.

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.

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.

Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are two study designs that provide randomized evidence in human biological and medical research. Both exploit the power of randomization to provide unconfounded estimates of causal effect. However, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies have very different study designs and scientific objectives. As a result, despite sometimes being referred to as "nature's randomized trial," a Mendelian randomization study cannot be used to replace a randomized trial but instead provides complementary information. In this review, we explain the similarities and differences between randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies, and suggest several ways that Mendelian randomization can be used to directly inform and improve the design of randomized trials illustrated with practical examples. We conclude by describing how Mendelian randomization studies can employ the principles of trial design to be framed as "naturally randomized trials" that can provide a template for the design of future randomized trials evaluating therapies directed against genetically validated targets.

Randomised controlled trial of oxygen therapy and high-flow nasal therapy in African children with pneumonia

Purpose

The life-saving role of oxygen therapy in African children with severe pneumonia is not yet established.

Methods

The open-label fractional-factorial COAST trial randomised eligible Ugandan and Kenyan children aged > 28 days with severe pneumonia and severe hypoxaemia stratum (SpO₂ < 80%) to high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) or low-flow oxygen (LFO: standard care) and hypoxaemia stratum (SpO₂ 80–91%) to HFNT or LFO (liberal strategies) or permissive hypoxaemia (ratio 1:1:2). Children with cyanotic heart disease, chronic lung disease or > 3 h receipt of oxygen were excluded. The primary endpoint was 48 h mortality; secondary endpoints included mortality or neurocognitive sequelae at 28 days.

Results

The trial was stopped early after enrolling 1852/4200 children, including 388 in the severe hypoxaemia stratum (median 7 months; median SpO₂ 75%) randomised to HFNT (n = 194) or LFO (n = 194) and 1454 in the hypoxaemia stratum (median 9 months; median SpO₂ 88%) randomised to HFNT (n = 363) vs LFO (n = 364) vs permissive hypoxaemia (n = 727). Per-protocol 15% of patients in the permissive hypoxaemia group received oxygen (when SpO₂ < 80%). In the severe hypoxaemia stratum, 48-h mortality was 9.3% for HFNT vs. 13.4% for LFO groups. In the hypoxaemia stratum, 48-h mortality was 1.1% for HFNT vs. 2.5% LFO and 1.4% for permissive hypoxaemia. In the hypoxaemia stratum, adjusted odds ratio for 48-h mortality in liberal vs permissive comparison was 1.16 (0.49–2.74; p = 0.73); HFNT vs LFO comparison was 0.60 (0.33–1.06; p = 0.08). Strata-specific 28 day mortality rates were, respectively: 18.6, 23.4 and 3.3, 4.1, 3.9%. Neurocognitive sequelae were rare.

Conclusions

Respiratory support with HFNT showing potential benefit should prompt further trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06385-3.

The world is waiting, use sequential analysis and get us the evidence-based treatment we need for COVID-19

In spite of the relatively high morbidity and mortality, there is no approved medication yet for COVID-19. There are more than 200 ongoing trials on different drugs or vaccines, but new medications may take until 2021 to develop. Defining the optimal number of patients to be included in a study is a considerable challenge in these interventional researches. Ethical considerations prompt researchers to minimize the number of patients included in a trial. This gains particular importance when the disease is rare or lethal which is particularly so in the case of COVID-19. It is of paramount importance to explore some of the available tools that could help accelerate the adoption of any or some of the many proposed modalities for the treatment of diseases. These tools should be effective, yet efficient, for rapid testing of such treatments. Sequential analysis has not been frequently used in many clinical trials where it should have been used. None of the authors in published literature, as far as we know, used sequential analysis techniques to test potential drugs for COVID-19. In addition to its usefulness when the results of new forms of treatment are quickly needed, other important benefit of sequential analysis includes the ability to reach a similar conclusion about the utility of a new drug without unduly exposing more patients to the side effect of the old drug, in particularly, for the treatment of a rare disease.

An approach to explore for a sweet spot in randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to demonstrate how a conventional randomized trial can be analyzed through a stratified or a matched approach to identify a potential sweet spot where observed differences might be accentuated in the mid range of disease severity.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We review a landmark randomized trial of heart failure patients that tested whether implantable defibrillators reduce mortality (n = 2,521).

RESULTS

Overall, 22% (182/829) of the patients in the defibrillator group died compared with 29% (484/1,692) of patients in the control group. Proportional hazards analysis yielded a modest 25% survival benefit (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 0.89). Stratified analysis of the trial yielded a larger 52% survival benefit for those in the middle quintile of disease severity (hazard ratio = 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.79). In contrast, little of the survival benefit was explained by patients with the greatest disease severity (hazard ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 1.15). The discrepancy between crude and stratified analyses could be visualized by graphical displays and replicated with matched comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Our approach for analyzing a randomized trial could help identify a potential sweet spot of an accentuated treatment effect.

The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is usually managed in primary care, but most antidepressant trials are of patients from secondary care mental health services, with eligibility criteria based on diagnosis and severity of depressive symptoms. Antidepressants are now used in a much wider group of people than in previous regulatory trials. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline in patients in primary care with depressive symptoms ranging from mild to severe and tested the role of severity and duration in treatment response.

METHODS

The PANDA study was a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of patients from 179 primary care surgeries in four UK cities (Bristol, Liverpool, London, and York). We included patients aged 18 to 74 years who had depressive symptoms of any severity or duration in the past 2 years, where there was clinical uncertainty about the benefit of an antidepressant. This strategy was designed to improve the generalisability of our sample to current use of antidepressants within primary care. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a remote computer-generated code to sertraline or placebo, and were stratified by severity, duration, and site with random block length. Patients received one capsule (sertraline 50 mg or placebo orally) daily for one week then two capsules daily for up to 11 weeks, consistent with evidence on optimal dosages for efficacy and acceptability. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms 6 weeks after randomisation, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item version (PHQ-9) scores. Secondary outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 weeks were depressive symptoms and remission (PHQ-9 and Beck Depression Inventory-II), generalised anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment 7-item version), mental and physical health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), and self-reported improvement. All analyses compared groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). The study is registered with EudraCT, 2013-003440-22 (protocol number 13/0413; version 6.1) and ISRCTN, ISRCTN84544741, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 31, 2017, we recruited and randomly assigned 655 patients-326 (50%) to sertraline and 329 (50%) to placebo. Two patients in the sertraline group did not complete a substantial proportion of the baseline assessment and were excluded, leaving 653 patients in total. Due to attrition, primary outcome analyses were of 550 patients (266 in the sertraline group and 284 in the placebo group; 85% follow-up that did not differ by treatment allocation). We found no evidence that sertraline led to a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks. The mean 6-week PHQ-9 score was 7·98 (SD 5·63) in the sertraline group and 8·76 (5·86) in the placebo group (adjusted proportional difference 0·95, 95% CI 0·85-1·07; p=0·41). However, for secondary outcomes, we found evidence that sertraline led to reduced anxiety symptoms, better mental (but not physical) health-related quality of life, and self-reported improvements in mental health. We observed weak evidence that depressive symptoms were reduced by sertraline at 12 weeks. We recorded seven adverse events-four for sertraline and three for placebo, and adverse events did not differ by treatment allocation. Three adverse events were classified as serious-two in the sertraline group and one in the placebo group. One serious adverse event in the sertraline group was classified as possibly related to study medication.

INTERPRETATION

Sertraline is unlikely to reduce depressive symptoms within 6 weeks in primary care but we observed improvements in anxiety, quality of life, and self-rated mental health, which are likely to be clinically important. Our findings support the prescription of SSRI antidepressants in a wider group of participants than previously thought, including those with mild to moderate symptoms who do not meet diagnostic criteria for depression or generalised anxiety disorder.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Current Recommendations and Practice of Oxygen Therapy in Preterm Infants

This narrative review identified 23 publications in 2011 to 2019 discussing randomized trials of oxygen saturation targets of 85% to 89% versus 91% to 95% in infants below 28 weeks' gestation. Of 18 commentaries or consensus statements, 17 recommended saturation targets above 89%. Five systematic reviews reported that the 85% to 89% target increased mortality but not the composite of death or disability. The evidence for increased mortality was assessed as of "high", "moderate," or "low," quality, reflecting substantial differences in interpreting the GRADE guidelines. Systematic reviews and guidelines without biostatisticians or epidemiologists as co-authors should be considered potentially problematic.

Trial management: we need a cadre of high-class triallists to deliver the answers that patients need

Expert trial managers with the training and experience to overcome operational challenges are often the difference between the success and failure of a clinical trial. Considerable importance is given to the beginning and the end of the clinical trial process, with those responsible for writing a protocol, obtaining funding and analysing the data all being rewarded when the results are published. Yet, trial managers are often overlooked in terms of recognition, value and status. This article highlights some of the key barriers to achieving this and makes suggestions on how they can be addressed within clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the 'Care for Stroke' intervention in India: a smartphone-enabled, carer-supported, educational intervention for management of disabilities following stroke

INTRODUCTION

The rising prevalence of stroke and stroke-related disability witnessed globally over the past decades may cause an overwhelming demand for rehabilitation services. This situation is of concern for low-income and middle-income countries like India where the resources for rehabilitation are often limited. Recently, a smartphone-enabled carer-supported educational intervention for management of physical disabilities following stroke was developed in India. It was found to be feasible and acceptable, but evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Hence, as a step forward, this study intends to evaluate clinical effectiveness of the intervention through a randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The objective of the study is to evaluate whether the 'Care for Stroke' intervention is clinically and cost-effective for the reduction of dependency in activities of daily living among stroke survivors in an Indian setting. This study is designed as a randomised controlled trial comparing people who received the intervention to those receiving standard care. The trial will be pragmatic and outcome assessor-blinded. The primary outcome for the study is dependency in daily living measured by the Modified Rankin Scale (MRS). A total of 266 adult stroke survivors who fulfil the eligibility criteria will be randomised to receive either 'Care for Stroke' intervention or standard treatment and will be followed up for 6 weeks. The main analyses will compare participants allocated to the 'Care for Stroke' intervention versus those allocated to the standard treatment group on an 'intention-to-treat' basis, irrespective of whether the participants received the treatment allocated or not. The dichotomised MRS scores (0-3 and 4-6) in both the groups will be used to calculate the effect estimates with a measure of precision (95% CI) and presented in the results of the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Indian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad/Public Health Foundation of India - Independent Institutional Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee of the London School of HygieneandTropical Medicine. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2017/07/009014.

Delayed versus Immediate Cord Clamping in Preterm Infants

BACKGROUND

The preferred timing of umbilical-cord clamping in preterm infants is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned fetuses from women who were expected to deliver before 30 weeks of gestation to either immediate clamping of the umbilical cord (≤10 seconds after delivery) or delayed clamping (≥60 seconds after delivery). The primary composite outcome was death or major morbidity (defined as severe brain injury on postnatal ultrasonography, severe retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or late-onset sepsis) by 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, accounting for multiple births.

RESULTS

Of 1634 fetuses that underwent randomization, 1566 were born alive before 30 weeks of gestation; of these, 782 were assigned to immediate cord clamping and 784 to delayed cord clamping. The median time between delivery and cord clamping was 5 seconds and 60 seconds in the respective groups. Complete data on the primary outcome were available for 1497 infants (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between infants assigned to delayed clamping (37.0%) and those assigned to immediate clamping (37.2%) (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.96). The mortality was 6.4% in the delayed-clamping group and 9.0% in the immediate-clamping group (P=0.03 in unadjusted analyses; P=0.39 after post hoc adjustment for multiple secondary outcomes). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of chronic lung disease or other major morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Among preterm infants, delayed cord clamping did not result in a lower incidence of the combined outcome of death or major morbidity at 36 weeks of gestation than immediate cord clamping. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; APTS Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000633088 .).

The changing role of the health care customer: review, synthesis and research agenda

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize findings from health care research with those in service research to identify key conceptualizations of the changing role of the health care customer, to identify gaps in theory, and to propose a compelling research agenda.

Design/methodology/approach

This study combines a meta-narrative review of health care research, and a systematic review of service research, using thematic analysis to identify key practice approaches and the changing role of the health care customer.

Findings

The review reveals different conceptualizations of the customer role within the ten key practice approaches, and identifies an increased activation of the role of the health care customer over time. This change implies a re-orientation, that is, moving away from the health care professional setting the agenda, prescribing and delivering treatment where the customer merely complies with orders, to the customer actively contributing and co-creating value with service providers and other actors in the ecosystem to the extent the health care customer desires.

Originality/value

This study not only identifies key practice approaches by synthesizing findings from health care research with those in service research, it also identifies how the role of the health care customer is changing and highlights effects of the changing role across the practice approaches. A research agenda to guide future health care service research is also provided.

The quality of randomised controlled trials involving surgery from the hand to the elbow

Aims

Our purpose was to determine the quality of current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in hand surgery using standardised metrics.

Materials and Methods

Based on five-year mean impact factors, we selected the six journals that routinely publish studies of upper extremity surgery. Using a journal-specific search query, 62 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Then three blinded reviewers used the Jadad and revised Coleman Methodology Score (RCMS) to assess the quality of the manuscripts.

Results

Based on the Jadad scale, 28 studies were of high quality and 34 were of low quality. Methodological deficiencies in poorly scoring trials included the absence of rate of enrolment, no power analysis, no description of withdrawal or dropout, and a failure to use validated outcomes assessments with an independent investigator.

Conclusion

A large number of RCTs in hand, wrist, and elbow surgery were of suboptimal quality when judged against the RCMS and Jadad scales. Even with a high level of evidence, study design and execution of RCTs should be critically assessed. Methodological deficiencies may introduce bias and lead to statistically underpowered studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:94–9.

Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls

The purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information about which currently available interventions and practices are most effective for patients. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the hallmark of scientific proof, and have been used to compare interventions used in variable ways by different clinicians (comparative effectiveness RCTs, CER-RCTs). But such CER-RCTs have at times generated controversy. Usually the background for the CER-RCT is a range of "standard therapy" or "standard of care." This may have been adopted on observational data alone, or pilot data. At times, such prior data may derive from populations that differ from the population in which the widely variable standard approach is being applied. We believe that controversies related to these CER-RCTs result from confusing "accepted" therapies and "rigorously evaluated therapies." We first define evidence-based medicine and consider how well neonatology conforms to that definition. We then contrast the approach of testing new therapies and those already existing and widely adopted, as in CER-RCTs. We next examine a central challenge in incorporating the control arm within CER-RCTs and aspects of the "titrated" trial. We finally briefly consider some ethical issues that have arisen, and discuss the wide range of neonatology practices that could be tested by CER-RCTs or alternative CER-based strategies that might inform practice. Throughout, we emphasize the lack of awareness of the lay community, and indeed many researchers or commentators, in appreciating the wide variation of standard of care. There is a corresponding need to identify the best uses of available resources that will lead to the best outcomes for our patients. We conclude that CER-RCTs are an essential methodology in modern neonatology to address many unanswered questions and test unproven therapies in newborn care.

Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling

There has been an increasing interest in using expected value of information (EVI) theory in medical decision making, to identify the need for further research to reduce uncertainty in decision and as a tool for sensitivity analysis. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) has been proposed for determination of optimum sample size and allocation rates in randomized clinical trials. This article derives simple Monte Carlo, or nested Monte Carlo, methods that extend the use of EVSI calculations to medical decision applications with multiple sources of uncertainty, with particular attention to the form in which epidemiological data and research findings are structured. In particular, information on key decision parameters such as treatment efficacy are invariably available on measures of relative efficacy such as risk differences or odds ratios, but not on model parameters themselves. In addition, estimates of model parameters and of relative effect measures in the literature may be heterogeneous, reflecting additional sources of variation besides statistical sampling error. The authors describe Monte Carlo procedures for calculating EVSI for probability, rate, or continuous variable parameters in multi parameter decision models and approximate methods for relative measures such as risk differences, odds ratios, risk ratios, and hazard ratios. Where prior evidence is based on a random effects meta-analysis, the authors describe different ESVI calculations, one relevant for decisions concerning a specific patient group and the other for decisions concerning the entire population of patient groups. They also consider EVSI methods for new studies intended to update information on both baseline treatment efficacy and the relative efficacy of 2 treatments. Although there are restrictions regarding models with prior correlation between parameters, these methods can be applied to the majority of probabilistic decision models. Illustrative worked examples of EVSI calculations are given in an appendix.

Design and conduct of a large obstetric or neonatal randomized controlled trial

As event rates fall, if mortality and disability are to improve further there is increasing need for large, well-designed trials. These should enroll more patients, more rapidly and at lower cost, with better representation of infants at highest risk and greater integration with routine care. This may require simpler datasets, linkage with routinely collected data, and international collaboration. It may be helpful to draw attention to recent evidence that participation in Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is at least as safe as receiving established care. Nationally coordinated clinical research networks employing local research staff may be the single most effective strategy to integrate clinical trials into routine practice. Other goals are: international standardization of outcomes; consensus on composite endpoints, biomarkers, surrogates and measures of disability; greater efficiency through randomized factorial designs and cluster or cross-over cluster RCTs; and equipping parents as partners in all aspects of the conduct of RCTs and in implementing their results.

Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the thoracic surgery literature according to Consolidated Standard for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and to determine predictors of quality.

METHODS

All RCTs published in four principal journals between 1998 and 2013 were identified in PubMed. Two independent reviewers assessed each trial using the CONSORT checklist (1996) with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Mean checklist scores were compared between trials published from 1998 to 2005 and 2006 to 2013. The κ statistic for inter-rater agreement was calculated. Stepwise multivariable linear regression was then performed to identify independent predictors of quality.

RESULTS

After 2 rounds of review, 203 of the 2838 identified articles met inclusion criteria. The overall κ coefficient was 0.95 indicating very good agreement between reviewers. The mean CONSORT score was significantly higher in 2006-13 [mean 10.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 10.3-11.2] than in 1998-2005 (mean 9.3; 95% CI: 8.7-9.6). On multivariable analysis, there was strong evidence of an increased mean CONSORT score in studies comparing non-surgical interventions, multicentre trials, publications after 2006, studies with increased number of authors and studies funded by industries.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the quality of reporting in the thoracic surgery literature is improving with time and is predicted by factors including number of authors, multicentre trials, type of comparison, time period of publication and industry sponsorship. Ongoing efforts should be made to improve the quality of reporting in thoracic surgery.

Data monitoring committees for pragmatic clinical trials

In any clinical trial, it is essential to monitor the accumulating data to be sure that the trial continues to be safe for participants and that the trial is being conducted properly. Data monitoring committees, independent expert panels who undertake regular reviews of the data as the trial progresses, serve an important role in safeguarding the interests of research participants and ensuring trial integrity in many trials. Many pragmatic clinical trials, which aim to inform healthcare decisions by comparing alternate interventions in heterogeneous healthcare delivery settings, will warrant review by an independent data monitoring committee due to their potential impact on clinical practice. However, the very features that make a trial "pragmatic" may pose challenges in terms of which aspects of a trial to monitor and when it is appropriate for a data monitoring committee to intervene. Using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary tool that draws distinctions between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials, we review characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials that may have implications for data monitoring committees and interim monitoring plans. These include broad eligibility criteria, a focus on subjective patient-centered outcomes, and in some cases a lack of standardized follow-up procedures across study sites. Additionally, protocol adherence is often purposefully not addressed in pragmatic trials in order to accurately represent the clinical practice setting and maintain practicability of implementation; there are differing viewpoints as to whether adherence should be assessed and acted upon by data monitoring committees in these trials. Some other issues not specifically related to the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary criteria may also merit special consideration in pragmatic trials. Thresholds for early termination of a pragmatic clinical trial might be controversial. The distinguishing features of pragmatic clinical trials require careful consideration when developing interim data monitoring plans, and trial sponsors, investigators, and data monitoring committees should agree on a plan before trial inception. Finally, special expertise, such as an informatics, may be helpful on data monitoring committees for some pragmatic clinical trials. Patient representatives may provide particularly valuable insights in the monitoring process.

Control treatments in biologics trials of rheumatoid arthritis were often not deemed acceptable in the context of care

OBJECTIVES

Control treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should not deliberately disadvantage patients. The objectives of the study were to compare (1) willingness to include vs. (2) willingness to prescribe control treatment among physicians randomized to assess, respectively, either (1) enrollment in a trial or (2) appropriateness of control treatment in a care context for the same fictional patient.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Physicians were authors of articles about rheumatoid arthritis (RA), involved in RA patient care, and used to enrolling patients in trials. The outcomes were willingness to give control treatment: trial enrollment or control-treatment appropriateness in care context. We derived three case vignettes of fictional standard eligible patients for each of 30 RCTs assessing biologics in RA. Physicians were randomly allocated to the "trial" or "care" arm. For each of the 90 fictional patients, physicians assigned to the trial arm were asked if they would enroll the patient in the RCT the patient was derived from. For the same 90 fictional patients, physicians assigned to the care arm were asked if the control treatment of the RCT was appropriate in a context of usual care.

RESULTS

Of the 1,779 physicians invited to participate, 151 were randomized. Half of the fictional patients {41/90; 45% [95% confidence interval (CI): 37%, 53%]} would be enrolled in the RCT although the control-arm treatment of the RCT was not considered appropriate for them in the context of care. This rate differed by type of comparator [55% for non-head-to-head RCTs vs. 6% for head-to-head RCTs; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 23.9 (95% CI: 5.5, 92.7)] and duration of trial control treatment [56% for ≤24 weeks and 15% for >24 weeks; aOR, 10.7 (95% CI: 2.8, 63.9)] but not patient RA activity [aOR, 2.5 (95% CI: 1.0, 6.6)]. The limitation of this study was that physicians gave their opinion on fictional patients with only RA.

CONCLUSIONS

Control treatments in RCTs of biologics in RA are often deemed not acceptable in the context of usual care, especially those for non-head-to-head RCTs. These findings raise ethical concerns and challenge the choice of the comparator in RCTs.

Factors affecting recruitment into depression trials: Systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Depression is common and clinical trials are crucial for evaluating treatments. Difficulties in recruiting participants into depression trials are well-documented, yet no study has examined the factors affecting recruitment. This review aims to identify the factors affecting recruitment into depression trials and to develop a conceptual framework through systematic assessment of published qualitative research.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-synthesis of published qualitative studies. Meta-synthesis involves a synthesis of themes across a number of qualitative studies to produce findings that are "greater than the sum of the parts". ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline and PsychInfo were searched up to April 2013. Reference lists of included studies, key publications and relevant reviews were also searched. Quality appraisal adopted the "prompts for appraising qualitative research".

RESULTS

7977 citations were identified, and 15 studies were included. Findings indicate that the decision to enter a depression trial is made by patients and gatekeepers based on the patient׳s health state at the time of being approached to participate; on their attitude towards the research and trial interventions; and on the extent to which patients become engaged with the trial. Our conceptual framework highlights that the decision to participate by both the patient and the gatekeeper involves a judgement between risk and reward.

LIMITATIONS

Only English language publications were included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review have implications for the design of interventions to improve recruitment into depression trials. Such interventions may aim to diminish the perceived risks and increase the perceived rewards of participation.

HALT-IT--tranexamic acid for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency that causes substantial mortality worldwide. Acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding accounts for about 75,000 hospital admissions each year in the UK and causes the death of about 10% of these patients.

Tranexamic acid has been shown to reduce the need for blood transfusion in surgical patients and to reduce mortality in bleeding trauma patients, with no apparent increase in thromboembolic events.

A systematic review of clinical trials of upper gastrointestinal bleeding shows a reduction in the risk of death with tranexamic acid but the quality of the trials was poor and the estimates are imprecise. The trials were also too small to assess the effect of tranexamic acid on thromboembolic events.

Methods

HALT-IT is a pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial which will determine the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, morbidity (re-bleeding, non-fatal vascular events), blood transfusion, surgical intervention, and health status in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Eight thousand adult patients who fulfil the eligibility criteria will be randomised to receive tranexamic acid or placebo.

Adults with significant acute upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding can be included if the responsible doctor is substantially uncertain as to whether or not to use tranexamic acid in that particular patient.

Trial treatment consists of a loading dose of tranexamic acid (1 g by intravenous injection) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) given as soon as possible after randomisation, followed by an intravenous infusion of 3 g tranexamic acid or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 24 hours.

The main analyses will compare those allocated tranexamic acid with those allocated placebo, on an intention-to-treat basis. Results will be presented as effect estimates with a measure of precision (95% confidence intervals). Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will be based on time to treatment, source of bleeding (upper versus lower), suspected variceal bleeding and severity of bleeding. A study with 8,000 patients will have over 90% power to detect a 25% reduction in mortality from 10% to 7.5%.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767 (registration date: 3 July 2012); Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01658124 (registration date: 26 July 2012).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-450) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of the study was to investigate how doctors considered and experienced the concept of equipoise while recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Study Design and Setting

In-depth interviews with 32 doctors in six publicly funded pragmatic RCTs explored their perceptions of equipoise as they undertook RCT recruitment. The RCTs varied in size, duration, type of complex intervention, and clinical specialties. Interview data were analyzed using qualitative content and thematic analytical methods derived from grounded theory and synthesized across six RCTs.

Results

All six RCTs suffered from poor recruitment. Doctors wanted to gather robust evidence but experienced considerable discomfort and emotion in relation to their clinical instincts and concerns about patient eligibility and safety. Although they relied on a sense of community equipoise to justify participation, most acknowledged having “hunches” about particular treatments and patients, some of which undermined recruitment. Surgeons experienced these issues most intensely. Training and support promoted greater confidence in equipoise and improved engagement and recruitment.

Conclusion

Recruitment to RCTs is a fragile process and difficult for doctors intellectually and emotionally. Training and support can enable most doctors to become comfortable with key RCT concepts including equipoise, uncertainty, patient eligibility, and randomization, promoting a more resilient recruitment process in partnership with patients.

Inconsistencies between abstracts and manuscripts in published studies about lumbar spine surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comparison of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts and manuscripts published in recent spinal literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RCTs represent the "gold standard" upon which evidence-based treatment decisions are made. Inconsistencies between an abstract and manuscript can mislead readers' interpretation of findings and conclusions. Abstract findings are often cited without reference to the manuscript itself. In other fields of medicine, studies have shown discrepancies between RCT abstracts and manuscripts.

METHODS

A literature search of RCTs published in Spine, The Spine Journal, and Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques during a 10-year period (2001-2010) was performed. All manuscripts described as randomized trials concerning lumbar spinal surgery were selected. Manuscripts were analyzed using a standardized 21-item questionnaire to collect data regarding inconsistencies or bias in the abstract compared with the manuscript. Abstracts were considered deficient if they contained data that were either inconsistent with the manuscript or if they failed to include important findings from the manuscript. Four reviewers reported on the 40 manuscripts that met the inclusion criteria. Each manuscript was reviewed by 2 reviewers. In the event of conflicts in analysis, resolution was achieved through discussion between the reviewers.

RESULTS

At least 1 inconsistency was found in 75% of studies. Despite the word "randomized" appearing in 75% of titles and 92.5% of abstracts, the method of randomization was not described in 37.5% of manuscripts and (if described) was considered unacceptable in 28%. The primary outcome of the study was clearly stated in only 22.5% of abstracts and 47.5% of manuscripts. Pertinent negatives were not reported in 40% of the abstracts. Relevant statistically significant results were reported in only 60% of abstracts.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts are discrepant with full manuscripts in a surprisingly high proportion of manuscripts. Authors, editors, and peer reviewers should strive to ensure that abstracts accurately represent the data in RCT manuscripts.

Impact of selection criteria on recruitment in an interventional stroke trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for scientific evaluation of clinical diagnostic and treatment concepts. Frequently, recruitment of participants is slower than expected, especially in acute conditions with a short time frame for inclusion. Simple prediction models have been proposed to extrapolate recruitment rates. We hypothesized a significant overestimation of recruitment when ignoring interdependence of selection criteria, leading to an insufficient representation of reality by available models. We proposed that slight modifications to inclusion criteria might augment recruitment without causing selection bias.

METHODS

We analyzed recruitment in an acute intervention trial of acute ischemic stroke initiated by our facility. Frequencies of selection criteria were recorded and analyzed individually as well as cumulatively. We then amended the trial protocol by moderate modifications to the selection criteria. The main outcome criterion was the rate of recruited over screened patients, with the goal of increasing recruitment fourfold without adding unacceptable selection bias. A previously presented prediction model was applied to our trial and compared with actual recruitment. Data were compared between screening periods at recruitment prior to and after the implementation of the amendments.

RESULTS

The impact of typical as well as novel inclusion criteria such as age limits, imaging-based definition of pathology, time between onset and presentation as well as inability to consent were quantified. Age restriction, definition of index event and late arrival after ictus were identified as the most challenging modifiable selection criteria. Amending those criteria increased recruitment by a factor of 4.1. Inability to consent was a significant exclusion criterion gaining impact with the target population. The selection criteria had a cumulative rather than separate recruitment-limiting impact. A previously presented model did not predict recruitment sufficiently.

CONCLUSION

We describe frequencies of selection criteria in a typical cohort of patients suffering from acute cerebrovascular events, and their cumulative impact. These data may help to better understand recruitment limitations and allow designing future trials more effectively. Ability to consent especially is a major contributor to trial exclusion, strongly interfering with the targeted trial population of ischemic stroke. Tentative prescreening phases before site or trial initiation should be considered. No predictive statistical models of recruitment have been established so far.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES

A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist.

METHODS

Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Results on mining NHANES data: a case study in evidence-based medicine

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), administered annually by the National Center for Health Statistics, is designed to assess the general health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. Given to several thousands of individuals, the extent of this survey is very broad, covering demographic, laboratory and examination information, as well as responses to a fairly comprehensive health questionnaire. In this paper, we adapt and extend association rule mining and clustering algorithms to extract useful knowledge regarding diabetes and high blood pressure from the 1999-2008 survey results, thus demonstrating how data mining techniques may be used to support evidence-based medicine.

Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients

Background

Patient-centered medicine is developing alongside the concepts of personalized medicine and tailored therapeutics. The main objective of patient-centered medicine is to improve health outcomes of individual patients in everyday clinical practice, taking into account the patient’s objectives, preferences, values as well as the available economic resources.

Discussion

Patient-centered medicine implies a paradigm shift in the relationship between doctors and patients, but also requires the development of patient-oriented research. Patient-oriented research should not be based on the evaluation of medical interventions in the average patient, but on the identification of the best intervention for every individual patient, the study of heterogeneity and the assignment of greater value to observations and exceptions. The development of information-based technologies can help to close the gap between clinical research and clinical practice, a fundamental step for any advance in this field.

Summary

Evidence-based medicine and patient centered medicine are not contradictory but complementary movements. It is not possible to practice patient-centered medicine that is not based on evidence, nor is it possible to practice evidence-based medicine at a distance from the individual patient.

Advising mothers about breastfeeding and weaning reduced pacifier use in the first year of life: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of home visits for advising mothers about breastfeeding and weaning on pacifier use in the first year of life.

METHOD

A randomized field trial was conducted on mothers who gave birth within the public health system in the Brazilian city of Sao Leopoldo (intervention group = 200; controls = 300). The intervention group received the advice 10 days after the child's birth, monthly up to 6 months, at 8, 10, and 12 months, based on the 'Ten Steps for Healthy Feeding', a Brazilian national health policy for primary care, which follows WHO guidelines. Relative risk (RR) was used to estimate the effects of the intervention on the risk of using a pacifier.

RESULTS

55.4% of the children in the intervention group and 66.1% of the controls used a pacifier in the first year of life. The risk of using a pacifier was 16% lower for the intervention group (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). A multivariable Poisson regression model showed higher adjusted risk of using a pacifier for children who had breastfeeding interrupted in the first month of life (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.21-1.69) and whose mothers presented higher level of depression (RR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Pacifier use is highly prevalent in the population studied. The home visits for dietary advice appear to help in reducing pacifier use in infants. These findings suggest the need for public health strategies that address early advice on pacifier use to promote child oral and general health.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments.

OBJECTIVES

Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival.

MAIN RESULTS

The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of pragmatic clinical trials in older adults in the United States

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) seek to improve the generalizability and increase the statistical power of traditional explanatory trials. They are a major tenet of comparative effectiveness research. While a powerful study design, PCTs have been limited by high cost, modest efficiency, and limited ability to fill relevant evidence gaps. Based on an American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) supported meeting of national stakeholders, we propose several innovations and future research that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of such studies focused in the U.S. Innovations discussed include optimizing the use of community based practices through partnership with Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), using information technology to simplify PCT subject recruitment, consent and randomization processes, and utilizing linkages to large administrative databases, such as Medicare, as a mechanism to capture outcomes and other important PCT variables with lower subject and research team burden. Testing and adaptation of such innovations to PCT are anticipated to improve the public health value of these increasingly important studies.

The benefits and harms of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke (the third international stroke trial [IST-3]): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thrombolysis is of net benefit in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, who are younger than 80 years of age and are treated within 4·5 h of onset. The third International Stroke Trial (IST-3) sought to determine whether a wider range of patients might benefit up to 6 h from stroke onset.

METHODS

In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-treatment trial, patients were allocated to 0·9 mg/kg intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) or to control. The primary analysis was of the proportion of patients alive and independent, as defined by an Oxford Handicap Score (OHS) of 0-2 at 6 months. The study is registered, ISRCTN25765518.

FINDINGS

3035 patients were enrolled by 156 hospitals in 12 countries. All of these patients were included in the analyses (1515 in the rt-PA group vs 1520 in the control group), of whom 1617 (53%) were older than 80 years of age. At 6 months, 554 (37%) patients in the rt-PA group versus 534 (35%) in the control group were alive and independent (OHS 0-2; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·95-1·35, p=0·181; a non-significant absolute increase of 14/1000, 95% CI -20 to 48). An ordinal analysis showed a significant shift in OHS scores; common OR 1·27 (95% CI 1·10-1·47, p=0·001). Fatal or non-fatal symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days occurred in 104 (7%) patients in the rt-PA group versus 16 (1%) in the control group (adjusted OR 6·94, 95% CI 4·07-11·8; absolute excess 58/1000, 95% CI 44-72). More deaths occurred within 7 days in the rt-PA group (163 [11%]) than in the control group (107 [7%], adjusted OR 1·60, 95% CI 1·22-2·08, p=0·001; absolute increase 37/1000, 95% CI 17-57), but between 7 days and 6 months there were fewer deaths in the rt-PA group than in the control group, so that by 6 months, similar numbers, in total, had died (408 [27%] in the rt-PA group vs 407 [27%] in the control group).

INTERPRETATION

For the types of patient recruited in IST-3, despite the early hazards, thrombolysis within 6 h improved functional outcome. Benefit did not seem to be diminished in elderly patients.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council, Health Foundation UK, Stroke Association UK, Research Council of Norway, Arbetsmarknadens Partners Forsakringsbolag (AFA) Insurances Sweden, Swedish Heart Lung Fund, The Foundation of Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg, Polish Ministry of Science and Education, the Australian Heart Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Swiss National Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Assessorato alla Sanita, Regione dell'Umbria, Italy, and Danube University.

CRASH-3 - tranexamic acid for the treatment of significant traumatic brain injury: study protocol for an international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Worldwide, over 10 million people are killed or hospitalized because of traumatic brain injury each year. About 90% of deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. The condition mostly affects young adults, and many experience long lasting or permanent disability. The social and economic burden is considerable. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is commonly given to surgical patients to reduce bleeding and the need for blood transfusion. It has been shown to reduce the number of patients receiving a blood transfusion by about a third, reduces the volume of blood transfused by about one unit, and halves the need for further surgery to control bleeding in elective surgical patients.

Methods/design

The CRASH-3 trial is an international, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to quantify the effects of the early administration of TXA on death and disability in patients with traumatic brain injury. Ten thousand adult patients who fulfil the eligibility criteria will be randomized to receive TXA or placebo. Adults with traumatic brain injury, who are within 8 h of injury and have any intracranial bleeding on computerized tomography (CT scan) or Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 12 or less can be included if the responsible doctor is substantially uncertain as to whether or not to use TXA in this patient. Patients with significant extracranial bleeding will be excluded since there is evidence that TXA improves outcome in these patients. Treatment will entail a 1 g loading dose followed by a 1 g maintenance dose over 8 h.

The main analyses will be on an ‘intention-to-treat’ basis, irrespective of whether the allocated treatment was received. Results will be presented as appropriate effect estimates with a measure of precision (95% confidence intervals). Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will be based on time from injury to randomization, the severity of the injury, location of the bleeding, and baseline risk. Interaction tests will be used to test whether the effect of treatment differs across these subgroups. A study with 10,000 patients will have approximately 90% power to detect a 15% relative reduction from 20% to 17% in all-cause mortality.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15088122; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01402882

Update on the third international stroke trial (IST-3) of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke and baseline features of the 3035 patients recruited

Background

Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is approved in Europe for use in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who meet strictly defined criteria. IST-3 sought to improve the external validity and precision of the estimates of the overall treatment effects (efficacy and safety) of rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke, and to determine whether a wider range of patients might benefit.

Design

International, multi-centre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial of intravenous rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke. Suitable patients had to be assessed and able to start treatment within 6 hours of developing symptoms, and brain imaging must have excluded intracranial haemorrhage and stroke mimics.

Results

The initial pilot phase was double blind and then, on 01/08/2003, changed to an open design. Recruitment began on 05/05/2000 and closed on 31/07/2011, by which time 3035 patients had been included, only 61 (2%) of whom met the criteria for the 2003 European approval for thrombolysis. 1617 patients were aged over 80 years at trial entry. The analysis plan will be finalised, without reference to the unblinded data, and published before the trial data are unblinded in early 2012. The main trial results will be presented at the European Stroke Conference in Lisbon in May 2012 with the aim to publish simultaneously in a peer-reviewed journal. The trial result will be presented in the context of an updated Cochrane systematic review. We also intend to include the trial data in an individual patient data meta-analysis of all the relevant randomised trials.

Conclusion

The data from the trial will: improve the external validity and precision of the estimates of the overall treatment effects (efficacy and safety) of iv rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke; provide: new evidence on the balance of risk and benefit of intravenous rtPA among types of patients who do not clearly meet the terms of the current EU approval; and, provide the first large-scale randomised evidence on effects in patients over 80, an age group which had largely been excluded from previous acute stroke trials.

Trial registration

ISRCTN25765518

Uncertainty and equipoise: at interplay between epistemology, decision making and ethics

In recent years, various authors have proposed that the concept of equipoise be abandoned because it conflates the practice of clinical care with clinical research. At the same time, the equipoise opponents acknowledge the necessity of clinical research if there are unresolved uncertainties about the effects of proposed healthcare interventions. As equipoise represents just 1 measure of uncertainty, proposals to abandon equipoise while maintaining a requirement for addressing uncertainties are contradictory and ultimately not valid. As acknowledgment and articulation of uncertainties represent key scientific and moral requirements for human experimentation, the concept of equipoise remains the most useful framework to link the theory of human experimentation with the theory of rational choice. In this article, I show how uncertainty (equipoise) is at the intersection between epistemology, decision making and ethics of clinical research. In particular, I show how our formulation of responses to uncertainties of hoped-for benefits and unknown harms of testing is a function of the way humans cognitively process information. This approach is based on the view that considerations of ethics and rationality cannot be separated. I analyze the response to uncertainties as it relates to the dual-processing theory, which postulates that rational approach to (clinical research) decision making depends both on analytical, deliberative processes embodied in scientific method (system II), and good human intuition (system I). Ultimately, our choices can only become wiser if we understand a close and intertwined relationship between irreducible uncertainty, inevitable errors and unavoidable injustice.

Vitamin A supplements for preventing mortality, illness, and blindness in children aged under 5: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine if vitamin A supplementation is associated with reductions in mortality and morbidity in children aged 6 months to 5 years.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data were double extracted; discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Meta-analyses were performed for mortality, illness, vision, and side effects.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Global Health, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and African Index Medicus. Databases were searched to April 2010 without restriction by language or publication status.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials of synthetic oral vitamin A supplements in children aged 6 months to 5 years. Studies of children with current illness (such as diarrhoea, measles, and HIV), studies of children in hospital, and studies of food fortification or β carotene were excluded.

RESULTS

43 trials with about 215,633 children were included. Seventeen trials including 194,483 participants reported a 24% reduction in all cause mortality (rate ratio=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.83). Seven trials reported a 28% reduction in mortality associated with diarrhoea (0.72, 0.57 to 0.91). Vitamin A supplementation was associated with a reduced incidence of diarrhoea (0.85, 0.82 to 0.87) and measles (0.50, 0.37 to 0.67) and a reduced prevalence of vision problems, including night blindness (0.32, 0.21 to 0.50) and xerophthalmia (0.31, 0.22 to 0.45). Three trials reported an increased risk of vomiting within the first 48 hours of supplementation (2.75, 1.81 to 4.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin A supplementation is associated with large reductions in mortality, morbidity, and vision problems in a range of settings, and these results cannot be explained by bias. Further placebo controlled trials of vitamin A supplementation in children between 6 and 59 months of age are not required. However, there is a need for further studies comparing different doses and delivery mechanisms (for example, fortification). Until other sources are available, vitamin A supplements should be given to all children at risk of deficiency, particularly in low and middle income countries.

Clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a status report from the ClinicalTrials.gov website

The aims of this study are to describe the characteristics of clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) listed in ClinicalTrials.gov and examine existing trends in study design, funding sources, outcomes, and drugs under investigation. We conducted a survey of ongoing clinical trials in RA registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website. We used the advanced search option and applied the following inclusion criteria, "rheumatoid arthritis", "open studies", "interventional", and "adults 18 years or older". Of 127 eligible trials, 53.5% of the studies were either phase 3 or 4, and 40.2% were phase 1, 2, and 2/3. Two-thirds of the trials were randomized (70.9%), and over half were, in addition, double-blinded (53.5%) and placebo-controlled (53.5%). Universities were listed as the primary sponsor for 18.9% of the trials and pharmaceutical industry for 73.2%. Majority of the trials were multi-center studies (93%) conducted outside the United States (54.3%). The most frequently used endpoint was drug efficacy (54.3%) followed by drug safety (25.2%). Most industry-funded trials were open for less than 12 months, whereas most university-funded trials were open for more than 24 months (58% each). Biologic therapies were the focus of most trials in the registry (78.5%). Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 and 4 trials form the majority of ongoing clinical trials in RA. The preponderance of industry funding of RA trials and the short duration of such trials are troubling trends which need to be addressed.