Selective outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack:A systematic review

IntroductionThe prevalence of outcome reporting bias (ORB, i.e. selective reporting according to the results observed) across primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is unknown.Materials and methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 3 February 2021 for reviews published 2008-2020 with at least one RCT of a therapeutic intervention, for participants with stroke or TIA, and a safety or efficacy outcome. We took a random sample of these RCTs and included those with a trial registry record or protocol published before reporting results. Two reviewers assessed discrepancies in outcome reporting across the trial registry record, protocol, statistical analysis plan, and publication for each RCT, using the classification system designed by the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials group.ResultsOf 600 RCTs, we identified a trial registry record in 120 (20%), a protocol in 28 (5%), and a statistical analysis plan in 5 (1%) with 123 (21%) distinct RCTs being eligible for assessment: 110 (89%, 95% CI 83-94) were at no risk, 7 (6%, 95% CI 3-11) RCTs were at low risk, and 6 (5%, 95% CI 2-10) were at high risk of ORB.DiscussionThe prevalence of ORB in primary outcomes was low in stroke/TIA RCTs that were included in Cochrane reviews and had an identifiable trial registry record or protocol. Concerningly, we were unable to identify a trial registry record or protocol in most of our sample.ConclusionWork is needed to further reduce ORB in stroke/TIA RCTs and explore the generalisability of these findings to RCTs outside of Cochrane reviews or without a registry record or protocol, as well as to secondary outcomes

Association Between Beta-Blocker or Statin Drug Use and the Risk of Hemorrhage From Cerebral Cavernous Malformations

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the association between beta-blocker or statin drug use and the future risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit from cerebral cavernous malformations (CCM). METHODS: The population-based Scottish Audit of Intracranial Vascular Malformations prospectively identified adults resident in Scotland first diagnosed with CCM during 1999 to 2003 or 2006 to 2010. We compared the association between beta-blocker or statin drug use after first presentation and the occurrence of new intracranial hemorrhage or persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit due to CCM for up to 15 years of prospective follow-up. We confirmed proportional hazards and used survival analysis with multivariable adjustment for age, intracranial hemorrhage at CCM presentation, and brain stem CCM location. RESULTS: Sixty-three (21%) of 300 adults used beta-blockers (27/63 [43%] used propranolol), and 73 (24%) used statin drugs over 3634 person-years of follow-up. At baseline, the only statistically significant imbalances in prespecified potential confounders were age by statin use and intracranial hemorrhage at presentation by beta-blocker use. Beta-blocker use was associated with a lower risk of new intracranial hemorrhage or persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01–0.66]; P=0.018). Statin use was associated with a nonsignificant lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage or persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.01–1.07]; P=0.067). CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blocker, but not statin, use was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage or persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit in patients with CCM

Volume and functional outcome of intracerebral hemorrhage according to oral anticoagulant type

Objective: To compare intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume and clinical outcome of non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC)–associated ICH to warfarin-associated ICH. Methods: In this multicenter cross-sectional observational study of patients with anticoagulant-associated ICH, consecutive patients with NOAC-ICH were compared to those with warfarin-ICH selected from a population of 344 patients with anticoagulant-associated ICH. ICH volume was measured by an observer blinded to clinical details. Outcome measures were ICH volume and clinical outcome adjusted for confounding factors. Results: We compared 11 patients with NOAC-ICH to 52 patients with warfarin-ICH. The median ICH volume was 2.4 mL (interquartile range [IQR] 0.3–5.4 mL) for NOAC-ICH vs 8.9 mL (IQR 4.0–21.3 mL) for warfarin-ICH (p = 0.0028). In univariate linear regression, use of warfarin (difference in cube root volume 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 2.53) and lobar ICH location (compared with nonlobar ICH; difference in cube root volume 1.52; 95% CI 2.20 to 0.85) were associated with larger ICH volumes. In multivariable linear regression adjusting for confounding factors (sex, hypertension, previous ischemic stroke, white matter disease burden, and premorbid modified Rankin Scale score [mRS]), warfarin use remained independently associated with larger ICH (cube root) volumes (coefficient 0.64; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.25; p = 0.042). Ordered logistic regression showed an increased odds of a worse clinical outcome (as measured by discharge mRS) in warfarin-ICH compared with NOAC-ICH: odds ratio 4.46 (95% CI 1.10 to 18.14; p = 0.037). Conclusions: In this small prospective observational study, patients with NOAC-associated ICH had smaller ICH volumes and better clinical outcomes compared with warfarin-associated ICH

A protocol for precise comparisons of small vessel disease lesions between ex vivo magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology

pp. 310-32La neuroimagen y los estudios clínicos han definido la enfermedad cerebral de los vasos pequeños humanos, pero la fisiopatología sigue siendo relativamente poco comprendida. Para desarrollar terapias eficaces y estrategias preventivas, debemos comprender mejor la heterogeneidad y el desarrollo de la enfermedad de los vasos pequeños a nivel celular.S

What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct : a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results. METHODS: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories. RESULTS: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct