Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

Association Between Industry Sponsorship of Spine-Related Clinical Trials, Publication Status, and Research Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Database Study.

OBJECTIVES

Prospective clinical trials in spinal surgery are expensive to conduct, especially when randomized, appropriately powered, and/or multicentered. Industry collaborations generate symbiotic relationships promoting technological advancement; however, they also allow for bias. To the authors' knowledge, there is no known analysis of correlations between industry sponsorship and publication rates of spine-related clinical trials. This observational work evaluates such potential associations.

METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried with terms spine, spinal, spondylosis, spondylolysis, cervical, lumbar, and compression fracture over an 11-year period. Design characteristics and outcomes were recorded from 822 spine surgery-related trials. Trials were stratified based on funding source and intervention class. Groups were compared via two-tailed chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test (α = .05), based on completion status and publication rates of positive vs negative results.

RESULTS

Industry-sponsored spine-related clinical trials were more likely to be terminated than their non-industry-sponsored counterparts (P < .001). Of the trials achieving publication, industry-sponsored trials reported positive results at a higher rate than did trials without industry funding (P = .037). Clinical trials examining devices were more likely to be terminated than those studying other intervention classes (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

High termination rates and positive result publication rates among industry-sponsored clinical trials in spinal surgery likely reflect industry's influence on the research community. Such partnership alleviates financial burden and provides accessibility to cutting-edge innovation. It is essential that all parties remain mindful of the significant bias that funding source may impart on study outcome.

How many sites should an orthopedic trauma prospective multicenter trial have? A marginal analysis of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium completed trials

BACKGROUND

Multicenter trials in orthopedic trauma are costly, yet crucial to advance the science behind clinical care. The number of sites is a key cost determinant. Each site has a fixed overhead cost, so more sites cost more to the study. However, more sites can reduce total costs by shortening the study duration. We propose to determine the optimal number of sites based on known costs and predictable site enrollment.

METHODS

This retrospective marginal analysis utilized administrative and financial data from 12 trials completed by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium. The studies varied in size, design, and clinical focus. Enrollment across the studies ranged from 1054 to 33 patients. Design ranged from an observational study with light data collection to a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Initial modeling identified the optimal number of sites for each study and sensitivity analyses determined the sensitivity of the model to variation in fixed overhead costs.

RESULTS

No study was optimized in terms of the number of participating sites. Excess sites ranged from 2 to 39. Excess costs associated with extra sites ranged from $17K to $330K with a median excess cost of $96K. Excess costs were, on average, 7% of the total study budget. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that studies with higher overhead costs require more sites to complete the study as quickly as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support that this model may be used by clinical researchers to achieve future study goals in a more cost-effective manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Please see Table 1 for individual trial registration numbers and dates of registration.

Clinical outcomes in the surgical management of ankle fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fibular intramedullary nail fixation vs. open reduction and internal fixation in randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

What level I evidence exists to support the use of FNF for surgical management of ankle fractures in high risk patients? The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes following fibular intramedullary nail fixation (FNF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Certainty of evidence reported according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Our primary hypothesis was that patients undergoing FNF procedures to manage an ankle fracture would have significantly higher patient reported outcome scores (PROs) than patients undergoing ORIF. Primary study outcome measures were validated PROs. Secondary outcome measures included complication rate, secondary surgery rate, and bony union.

RESULTS

The primary outcome analysis revealed no evidence of a significant effect difference on Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) PRO and no evidence of statistical heterogeneity. Secondary outcome analysis revealed a significant 0.30 (0.12-0.74 95CI) relative risk reduction for complications in FNF (P = 0.008). No evidence of an effect difference for bony union. The GRADE certainty of the evidence was rated as low for bone union. No evidence of reporting bias was appreciated. Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter effect estimates.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis restricted to evidence derived from RCTs revealed that the quality of evidence is reasonably strong and likely sufficient to conclude: (1) there is likely no clinically important difference between FNF and ORIF up to 12 months post-operatively, as defined by OMS (moderate certainty); (2) surgeons may reasonably expect reduced complications in 14 out of every 100 patients treated with FNF (moderate certainty); (3) there is likely no difference in bony union (low certainty). Future studies should investigate more patient-centered outcomes and if short-term findings are durable over time if these findings apply to lower risk populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis of level I evidence.

Evolution in the Acute Management of Open Fracture Treatment? Part 2

INTRODUCTION

In the first installment of this two-part series, we explored the history of open fracture treatment focusing primarily on bacteriology and antibiotic selection/stewardship. In this follow-up segment, we will analyze and summarize the other aspects of open fracture care such as time to debridement, pulsatile lavage, and open wound management (including time to closure)-finishing with summative statements and recommendations based on the current most up-to-date literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.