Reporting of Lost to Follow-Up and Treatment Discontinuation in Pharmacotherapy and Device Trials in Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review

Inclusion of harm outcomes in core outcome sets requires careful consideration

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of all published core outcome set (COS) studies that include an adverse event or harm outcome, to determine the proportion of individual vs pooled harms, and to investigate characteristics that influence their inclusion.

METHODS

We examined the extent to which a sample of 100 published COS studies (from January 2021 to January 2023) include both pooled and individual harms in the final COS. One investigator extracted the information from the COS studies, which was cross-checked against previous COS investigational research, and where possible verified with COS authors or a pharmacologist. Using Qualtrics™, we conducted a personalized online survey of developers of the 100 COS to ask them about the importance, their experiences, and methodological approaches for dealing with harms within their COS development studies.

RESULTS

One hundred COS were identified from 91 separate COS studies, the majority of which considered most of the minimum standards for development. Two-thirds (65%) of the COS included at least 1 harm outcome. In total, 1104 core outcomes were identified across the 100 COS, of which 184 (17%) were harm outcomes (154 individual vs 56 pooled). Individual harms were more likely to be included in a final COS if they were developed for single treatment interventions (50%) compared to those being developed for multitreatment modalities (39%). Some COS developers adopted outcome frameworks as part of their COS development process to facilitate the inclusion of harm outcomes in their final COS. A third (33%) of respondents felt that harm outcomes should be included in all COS but over half (56%) thought this would be dependent on some aspect of the scope of the COS and improved methodology and awareness of how to deal with harm outcomes in the COS development process.

CONCLUSION

Harm outcomes are already included in many COS either as individual or pooled harms. It is evident that there are some challenges with regards to both the methodology and necessity to include harms within a COS (pooled or individual. COS developers should carefully consider the need to include important harms outcomes in relation to the scope of the COS that they are developing.

Bayesian inference for a principal stratum estimand on recurrent events truncated by death

Recurrent events are often important endpoints in randomized clinical trials. For example, the number of recurrent disease-related hospitalizations may be considered as a clinically meaningful endpoint in cardiovascular studies. In some settings, the recurrent event process may be terminated by an event such as death, which makes it more challenging to define and estimate a causal treatment effect on recurrent event endpoints. In this paper, we focus on the principal stratum estimand, where the treatment effect of interest on recurrent events is defined among subjects who would be alive regardless of the assigned treatment. For the estimation of the principal stratum effect in randomized clinical trials, we propose a Bayesian approach based on a joint model of the recurrent event and death processes with a frailty term accounting for within-subject correlation. We also present Bayesian posterior predictive check procedures for assessing the model fit. The proposed approaches are demonstrated in the randomized Phase III chronic heart failure trial PARAGON-HF (NCT01920711).

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.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review

Objective

The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).

Methods

We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.

Results

Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.

Conclusions

Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.

Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

In 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021258819.

Extended follow-up after wearable cardioverter-defibrillator period: the PROLONG-II study

AIM

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is used for temporary protection from sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction before considering an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). However, the prognostic significance of the WCD remains controversial due to conflicting evidence. The aim of the present study was to evaluate prognosis of patients receiving life-saving WCD shocks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients receiving a WCD at Hannover Medical School for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction between 2012 and 2017 were included. Data were acquired at baseline, at 3 months and at last available follow-up (FU). Three hundred and fifty-three patients were included (69% male; age 56 ± 15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25 ± 8%). FU after the WCD was 2.8 ± 1.5 years with a maximum of 6.8 years. Daily WCD wear time was 22 ± 4 h. Fourteen patients (4%) received appropriate WCD shocks. Two patients (0.6%) died during the WCD period. Thirty patients (9%) died during extended FU. Mean estimated survival after the WCD was similar between patients with and without WCD shocks. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription did not experience SCD during FU.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with WCD shocks showed a favourable survival. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription had no SCD during FU. These findings support the practice of careful risk stratification before considering an ICD and the use of the WCD for temporary protection from SCD.

On clinical trial fragility due to patients lost to follow up

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials routinely have patients lost to follow up. We propose a methodology to understand their possible effect on the results of statistical tests by altering the concept of the fragility index to treat the outcomes of observed patients as fixed but incorporate the potential outcomes of patients lost to follow up as random and subject to modification.

METHODS

We reanalyse the statistical results of three clinical trials on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to study the possible effect of patients lost to follow up on the treatment effect statistical significance. To do so, we introduce the LTFU-aware fragility indices as a measure of the robustness of a clinical trial's statistical results with respect to patients lost to follow up.

RESULTS

The analyses illustrate that clinical trials can either be completely robust to the outcomes of patients lost to follow up, extremely sensitive to the outcomes of patients lost to follow up, or in an intermediate state. When a clinical trial is in an intermediate state, the LTFU-aware fragility indices provide an interpretable measure to quantify the degree of fragility or robustness.

CONCLUSIONS

The LTFU-aware fragility indices allow researchers to rigorously explore the outcomes of patients who are lost to follow up, when their data is the appropriate kind. The LTFU-aware fragility indices are sensitivity measures in a way that the original fragility index is not.

Follow-up loss in smoking cessation consultation: can we predict and prevent it?

Background

Cigarette smoking has a considerable health and economic burden in modern society, with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, smoking cessation policies and medical treatments are essential. However, cessation rates are low and the abandonment of the consultation is common. The identification of characteristics that may predict adherence will help defining the best treatment strategy. This study aimed to identify predictors of follow-up loss in smoking cessation consultation.

Methods

We made a retrospective observational study, including a cohort of patients who started smoking cessation consultation (April-December 2018). Clinical data from consultations was collected and analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865).

Results

A total of 175 patients was selected (41.1% female), with a mean age of 53±12 years. Eighty-five patients (48.6%) were discharged for abandonment. They had a median pack-year unit 38±36 (P=0.011), Fagerström and Richmond scores of 5±2 and 7±2, respectively. There was an association between women (P<0.001), younger age (P<0.001), depression/anxiety (P=0.023), lower smoking load (P=0.019), starting the treatment in the first appointment (P=0.004) and the abandonment of the consultation. In binary logistic regression, younger age (less than 50 years) (OR =4.39; 95% CI: 1.99-9.70), starting the treatment in the first appointment (OR =3.04; 95% CI: 1.44-6.42) and depression/anxiety (OR =2.30; 95% CI: 1.08-4.88) remained independent predictors of loss in follow-up.

Conclusions

Women, younger age, depression/anxiety, lower smoking load and starting treatment in the first appointment are predictors of follow-up loss, so, these patients may benefit from more frequent evaluations and intensive cognitive approach. This study also raises awareness about the adequate timing to start pharmacological support for smoking cessation.

A Randomized, Controlled, 3-Arm Trial of Pharmacological Penile Rehabilitation in the Preservation of Erectile Function After Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although the concept of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been advocated for decades, there is little definitive evidence regarding its utility or the best strategy to optimize patient outcomes.

AIM

The goal of this study is to analyze the ability of 3 different pharmacological strategies to preserve the ability of men to achieve spontaneous (non-medication assisted) erections after bilateral nerve-sparing RP.

METHODS

This IRB- and FDA-approved study studied penile rehabilitation in a 3-arm fashion with a target enrollment of 200 patients. (i) Control arm: nightly placebo with sildenafil 100 mg on demand for sexual relations (up to 6 pills/month); (ii) nightly sildenafil arm: nightly sildenafil 50 mg and sildenafil 100 mg on demand for sexual relations (up to 6 pills/month); (iii) combination therapy arm: nightly sildenafil 50 mg (5 nights/week) plus intracavernosal injections twice/week. Inclusion criteria included bilateral nerve-sparing surgery, normal serum total testosterone, and good preoperative baseline erectile function as measured by the erectile function domain score of the IIEF (EFD) (≥24). Patients were followed with a medication use diary and the IIEF questionnaire at 6 weeks, 3 m, 6 m, 12 m, 18 m and 24 m.

OUTCOMES

A difference was seen in the IIEF-EFD scores between the 3 groups at 24 months after RP. Secondary end points include the time to return of spontaneous functional erections, the time for patients to respond to oral erectogenic therapy, and the proportion of patients who have normalization of their IIEF-EFD scores.

RESULTS

The study was interrupted because of failure to recruit the target study population in a reasonable timeframe. A total of 76 subjects with median age of 57 (IQR: 51, 63) years and mean IIEF-EFD of 29 (IQR: 27, 30) were initially randomized, but at 24 months, the sample sizes by group were (i) n = 4; (ii) n = 18; and (iii) n = 10, with median IIEF-EFD 24 (IQR: 18, 28), 24 (IQR: 18, 28), and 21 (IQR: 9, 26), respectively. There was no statistical difference among the groups in the final analysis.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Definitive evidence for the ability of different pharmacological rehabilitation strategies to improve long-term EF outcomes might never be available.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This was a well-designed randomized and 3-arm designed trial intended to provide decisive evidence regarding the utility of penile rehabilitation. Failure to recruit the target population is the main limitation.

CONCLUSION

The limited number of patients in the present trial precludes definitive interpretation. However, results indicate how challenging it is to conduct true rehabilitation studies. Miranda EP, Benfante N, Kunzel B, et al. A Randomized, Controlled, 3-Arm Trial of Pharmacological Penile Rehabilitation in the Preservation of Erectile Function After Radical Prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2021;18:423-429.

Systematic review of statistical methods for safety data in malaria chemoprevention in pregnancy trials

BACKGROUND

Drug safety assessments in clinical trials present unique analytical challenges. Some of these include adjusting for individual follow-up time, repeated measurements of multiple outcomes and missing data among others. Furthermore, pre-specifying appropriate analysis becomes difficult as some safety endpoints are unexpected. Although existing guidelines such as CONSORT encourage thorough reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials, they provide limited details for safety data analysis. The limited guidelines may influence suboptimal analysis by failing to account for some analysis challenges above. A typical example where such challenges exist are trials of anti-malarial drugs for malaria prevention during pregnancy. Lack of proper standardized evaluation of the safety of antimalarial drugs has limited the ability to draw conclusions about safety. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to establish the current practice in statistical analysis for preventive antimalarial drug safety in pregnancy.

METHODS

The search included five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Malaria in Pregnancy Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to identify original English articles reporting Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on anti-malarial drugs for malaria prevention in pregnancy published from January 2010 to July 2019.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included in this review that collected multiple longitudinal safety outcomes including AEs. Statistical analysis and reporting of the safety outcomes in all the trials used descriptive statistics; proportions/counts (n = 18, 100%) and mean/median (n = 2, 11.1%). Results presentation included tabular (n = 16, 88.9%) and text description (n = 2, 11.1%). Univariate inferential methods were reported in most trials (n = 16, 88.9%); including Chi square/Fisher's exact test (n = 12, 66.7%), t test (n = 2, 11.1%) and Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon test (n = 1, 5.6%). Multivariable methods, including Poisson and negative binomial were reported in few trials (n = 3, 16.7%). Assessment of a potential link between missing efficacy data and safety outcomes was not reported in any of the trials that reported efficacy missing data (n = 7, 38.9%).

CONCLUSION

The review demonstrated that statistical analysis of safety data in anti-malarial drugs for malarial chemoprevention in pregnancy RCTs is inadequate. The analyses insufficiently account for multiple safety outcomes potential dependence, follow-up time and informative missing data which can compromise anti-malarial drug safety evidence development, based on the available data.

Impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers randomised controlled trial: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

OBJECTIVE

Recruitment and retention in trials may bias the results and subsequently complicate their interpretation and validity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers trial.

METHODS

The recruitment rate in each investigating center of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial was assessed and the 130 centers were subdivided into low and high recruiters according to the median, with all-cause mortality then compared between the two groups. Vital status was obtained from public records in patients with incomplete follow-up.

RESULTS

The trial randomized 15,991 (7.86%) of 203,483 eligible patients with percutaneous coronary intervention during the recruitment period, of whom 15,267 (95.47%) completed follow-up, 23 (0.14%) patients withdrew consent and formally requested to be deleted from the database; 183 (1.14%) withdrew consent but only objected to future data collection; 303 (1.89%) discontinued the study; and 215 (1.34%) were lost to follow-up. Vital status was finally obtained in all but 31 patients (99.81%). Patients from low recruiters had a significantly lower all-cause mortality than high ones (2.26% vs. 3.24%; hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.87; p = 0.002). There was a significant difference in all-cause mortality among the incomplete follow-up groups (log-rank p < 0.001) with a significantly higher mortality in the 183 patients who withdrew consent than those who completed follow-up (7.38% vs. 2.99%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment and retention significantly impacted all-cause mortality. Search for vital status through public domains is of paramount importance in the interpretation and validity of large clinical trials.