Use of days alive without life support and similar count outcomes in randomised clinical trials - an overview and comparison of methodological choices and analysis methods

Statistical Power and Performance of Strategies to Analyze Composites of Survival and Duration of Ventilation in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are at high risk of death and prolonged time on the ventilator. Interventions often aim to reduce both mortality and time on the ventilator. Many methods have been proposed for analyzing these endpoints as a single composite outcome (days alive and free of ventilation), but it is unclear which analytical method provides the best performance. Thus, we aimed to determine the analysis method with the highest statistical power for use in clinical trials.

METHODS

Using statistical simulation, we compared multiple methods for analyzing days alive and free of ventilation: the t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Kryger Jensen and Lange tests, as well as the proportional odds, hurdle-Poisson, and competing risk models. We compared 14 scenarios relating to: 1) varying baseline distributions of mortality and duration of ventilation, which were based on data from a registry of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and 2) the varying effects of treatment on mortality and duration of ventilation.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All methods have good control of type 1 error rates (i.e., avoid false positive findings). When data are simulated using a proportional odds model, the t test and ordinal models have the highest relative power (92% and 90%, respectively), followed by competing risk models. When the data are simulated using survival models, the competing risk models have the highest power (100% and 92%), followed by the t test and a ten-category ordinal model. All models struggled to detect the effect of the intervention when the treatment only affected one of mortality and duration of ventilation. Overall, the best performing analytical strategy depends on the respective effects of treatment on survival and duration of ventilation and the underlying distribution of the outcomes. The evaluated models each provide a different interpretation for the treatment effect, which must be considered alongside the statistical power when selecting analysis models.

Recommendations for clinical trial design in acute kidney injury from the 31st acute disease quality initiative consensus conference. A consensus statement

PURPOSE

Novel interventions for the prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI) are currently lacking. To facilitate the evaluation and adoption of new treatments, the use of the most appropriate design and endpoints for clinical trials in AKI is critical and yet there is little consensus regarding these issues. We aimed to develop recommendations on endpoints and trial design for studies of AKI prevention and treatment interventions based on existing data and expert consensus.

METHODS

At the 31st Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) meeting, international experts in critical care, nephrology, involving adults and pediatrics, biostatistics and people with lived experience (PWLE) were assembled. We focused on four main areas: (1) patient enrichment strategies, (2) prevention and attenuation studies, (3) treatment studies, and (4) innovative trial designs of studies other than traditional (parallel arm or cluster) randomized controlled trials. Using a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with > 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption.

RESULTS

The panel developed 12 consensus statements for clinical trial endpoints, application of enrichment strategies where appropriate, and inclusion of PWLE to inform trial designs. Innovative trial designs were also considered.

CONCLUSION

The current lack of specific therapy for prevention or treatment of AKI demands refinement of future clinical trial design. Here we report the consensus findings of the 31st ADQI group meeting which has attempted to address these issues including the use of predictive and prognostic enrichment strategies to enable appropriate patient selection.

Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol

BACKGROUND

Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low.

METHODS

The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.

Empirical carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam for infections in intensive care: An international retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICU) are frequently administered broad-spectrum antibiotics (e.g., carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam) for suspected or confirmed infections. This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe the use of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam in two international, prospectively collected datasets.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the "Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock" (ADRENAL) trial (n = 3713) and the "Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure" (DIANA) study (n = 1488). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving initial antibiotic treatment with carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam. Secondary outcomes included mortality, days alive and out of ICU and ICU length of stay at 28 days.

RESULTS

In the ADRENAL trial, carbapenems were used in 648 out of 3713 (17%), whereas piperacillin/tazobactam was used in 1804 out of 3713 (49%) participants. In the DIANA study, carbapenems were used in 380 out of 1480 (26%), while piperacillin/tazobactam was used in 433 out of 1488 (29%) participants. Mortality at 28 days was 23% for patients receiving carbapenems and 24% for those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam in ADRENAL and 23% and 19%, respectively, in DIANA. We noted variations in secondary outcomes; in DIANA, patients receiving carbapenems had a median of 13 days alive and out of ICU compared with 18 days among those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. In ADRENAL, the median hospital length of stay was 27 days for patients receiving carbapenems and 21 days for those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of ICU patients with infections, we found widespread initial use of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam in international ICUs, with the latter being more frequently used. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess if the observed variations in outcomes may be drug-related effects or due to confounders.

Position Paper on the Reporting of Norepinephrine Formulations in Critical Care from the Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Task Force

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance on the reporting of norepinephrine formulation labeling, reporting in publications, and use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Review and task force position statements with necessary guidance.

SETTING

A series of group conference calls were conducted from August 2023 to October 2023, along with a review of the available evidence and scope of the problem.

SUBJECTS

A task force of multinational and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

INTERVENTIONS

The implications of a variation in norepinephrine labeled as conjugated salt (i.e., bitartrate or tartrate) or base drug in terms of effective concentration of norepinephrine were examined, and guidance was provided.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were significant implications for clinical care, dose calculations for enrollment in clinical trials, and results of datasets reporting maximal norepinephrine equivalents. These differences were especially important in the setting of collaborative efforts across countries with reported differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A joint task force position statement was created outlining the scope of norepinephrine-dose formulation variations, and implications for research, patient safety, and clinical care. The task force advocated for a uniform norepinephrine-base formulation for global use, and offered advice aimed at appropriate stakeholders.

Sample size estimation in clinical trials using ventilator-free days as the primary outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-free days (VFDs) are a composite endpoint increasingly used as the primary outcome in critical care trials. However, because of the skewed distribution and competitive risk between components, sample size estimation remains challenging. This systematic review was conducted to systematically assess whether the sample size was congruent, as calculated to evaluate VFDs in trials, with VFDs' distribution and the impact of alternative methods on sample size estimation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted within the PubMed and Embase databases for randomized clinical trials in adults with VFDs as the primary outcome until December 2021. We focused on peer-reviewed journals with 2021 impact factors greater than five. After reviewing definitions of VFDs, we extracted the sample size and methods used for its estimation. The data were collected by two independent investigators and recorded in a standardized, pilot-tested forms tool. Sample sizes were calculated using alternative statistical approaches, and risks of bias were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Of the 26 clinical trials included, 19 (73%) raised "some concerns" when assessing risks of bias. Twenty-four (92%) trials were two-arm superiority trials, and 23 (89%) were conducted at multiple sites. Almost all the trials (96%) were unable to consider the unique distribution of VFDs and death as a competitive risk. Moreover, significant heterogeneity was found in the definitions of VFDs, especially regarding varying start time and type of respiratory support. Methods for sample size estimation were also heterogeneous, and simple models, such as the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test, were used in 14 (54%) trials. Finally, the sample sizes calculated varied by a factor of 1.6 to 17.4.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized definition and methodology for VFDs, including the use of a core outcome set, seems to be required. Indeed, this could facilitate the interpretation of findings in clinical trials, as well as their construction, especially the sample size estimation which is a trade-off between cost, ethics, and statistical power. Systematic review registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282304. Registered 15 December 2021 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021282304 ).