Safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that rituximab, a B cell depletion therapy, is an effective treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Data on the mechanisms of B cell depletion in SLE indicate that the combination of rituximab and belimumab may be more effective than rituximab alone. The safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial aims to determine whether belimumab is superior to placebo, when given 4-8 weeks after treatment with rituximab. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: BEAT-LUPUS is a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial of 52 weeks of belimumab versus placebo, initiated 4-8 weeks after rituximab treatment. The primary outcome is anti-dsDNA antibodies at 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include lupus flares and damage, adverse events, doses of concomitant medications, quality of life, and clinical biomarkers. We describe the trial's clinical context, outcome measures, sample size calculation, and statistical modelling strategy, and the supportive analyses planned to evaluate for mediation of the treatment effect through changes in concomitant medication doses and bias from missing data. DISCUSSION: The analysis will provide detailed information on the safety and effectiveness of belimumab. It will be implemented from July 2020 when patient follow-up and data collection is complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 47873003 . Registered on 28 November 2016. EudracT: 2015-005543-14 . Registered on 19 November 2018

A randomised, multi-centre trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis (TARVA): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to determine which surgical procedure confers the greatest improvement in pain-free function for patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Both procedures are effective but there has not yet been a direct comparison to establish which is superior. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: TARVA is a randomised, un-blinded, parallel group trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis. The primary outcome is the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score at 52 weeks post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include measures of pain, social interaction, physical function, quality of life, and range of motion. We describe in detail the statistical aspects of TARVA: the outcome measures, the sample size calculation, general analysis principles including treatment of missing data, the planned descriptive statistics and statistical models, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The TARVA statistical analysis will provide comprehensive and precise information on the relative effectiveness of the two treatments. The plan will be implemented in January 2020 when follow-up for the trial is completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry number 60672307, ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02128555. Registered 1 May 2014. Recruitment started in January 2015 and ended in January 2019

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. LIMITATIONS: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. FUTURE WORK: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Randomised, single-masked non-inferiority trial of femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery for adults with visually significant cataract : the FACT trial protocol

The study is supported by a grant from the National Institute for Health (NIHR) Health and Technologies Assessment (HTA) programme (reference 13/04/46). The corneal endothelial cell counter used at the Moorfields St Ann's Hospital site was purchased by a grant from the Special Trustees of Moorfields Eye Hospital (reference ST1503D).Introduction Cataract is one of the leading causes of low vision in the westernised world, and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed operations. Laser platforms for cataract surgery are now available, the anticipated advantages of which are broad and may include better visual outcomes through greater precision and reproducibility, and improved safety. FACT is a randomised single masked non-inferiority trial to establish whether laser-assisted cataract surgery is as good as or better than standard manual phacoemulsification. Methods and analysis 808 patients aged 18 years and over with visually significant cataract will be randomised to manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery (standard care) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (intervention arm). Outcomes will be measured at 3 and 12 months after surgery. The primary clinical outcome is uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, logMAR) at 3 months in the study eye recorded by an observer masked to the trial group. Secondary outcomes include UDVA at 12 months, corrected distance visual acuity at 3 and 12 months, complications, endothelial cell loss, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic analysis conforming to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standards. Ethics and dissemination Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 6 February 2015, ref: 14/LO/1937. Current protocol: v2.0 (08/04/2015). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number: ISRCTN: 77602616.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

Abstract Background: Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. Methods: We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. Results: TRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination). TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient&apos;s care, while reducing the potential for bias. Conclusions: When blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias

M.I.C.E-Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. METHODS: In total, 334 participants aged 3-18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197 . Registered on 25 February 2019

Jugoslavenska mornarica u završnim operacijama ,,Jadranu sloboda"

The trial was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Panel (project reference number HTA 13/04/46 and was sponsored by University College London (UCL).Purpose To report the 3-month results of a randomized trial (Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Trial [FACT]) comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). Design Multicenter, randomized controlled trial funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (HTA 13/04/46/). Participants Seven hundred eighty-five patients with age-related cataract. Methods This trial took place in 3 hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by site, surgeon, and 1 or both eyes eligible using a secure web-based system. Postoperative assessments were masked to the allocated intervention. The primary outcome was unaided distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the study eye at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures. The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). ISRCTN.com registry, number ISRCTN77602616. Main Outcome Measures We enrolled 785 participants between May 2015 and September 2017 and randomly assigned 392 to FLACS and 393 to PCS. At 3 months postoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was −0.01 logMAR (−0.05 to 0.03), and mean corrected distance visual acuity difference was −0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.05 to 0.02). Seventy-one percent of both FLACS and PCS cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) of the refractive target, and 93% of FLACS and 92% of PCS cases were within ±1.0 D. There were 2 posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm and none in the FLACS arm. There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary outcome. Conclusions Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is not inferior to conventional PCS surgery 3 months after surgery. Both methods are as good in terms of vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes at 3 months. Longer-term outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

Background Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. Methods We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. Results TRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination). TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient’s care, while reducing the potential for bias. Conclusions When blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias

A re-randomisation design for clinical trials

Background: Recruitment to clinical trials is often problematic, with many trials failing to recruit to their target sample size. As a result, patient care may be based on suboptimal evidence from underpowered trials or non-randomised studies. Methods: For many conditions patients will require treatment on several occasions, for example, to treat symptoms of an underlying chronic condition (such as migraines, where treatment is required each time a new episode occurs), or until they achieve treatment success (such as fertility, where patients undergo treatment on multiple occasions until they become pregnant). We describe a re-randomisation design for these scenarios, which allows each patient to be independently randomised on multiple occasions. We discuss the circumstances in which this design can be used. Results: The re-randomisation design will give asymptotically unbiased estimates of treatment effect and correct type I error rates under the following conditions: (a) patients are only re-randomised after the follow-up period from their previous randomisation is complete; (b) randomisations for the same patient are performed independently; and (c) the treatment effect is constant across all randomisations. Provided the analysis accounts for correlation between observations from the same patient, this design will typically have higher power than a parallel group trial with an equivalent number of observations. Conclusions: If used appropriately, the re-randomisation design can increase the recruitment rate for clinical trials while still providing an unbiased estimate of treatment effect and correct type I error rates. In many situations, it can increase the power compared to a parallel group design with an equivalent number of observations