Efficient methods for signal detection from correlated adverse events in clinical trials

It is an important and yet challenging task to identify true signals from many adverse events that may be reported during the course of a clinical trial. One unique feature of drug safety data from clinical trials, unlike data from post-marketing spontaneous reporting, is that many types of adverse events are reported by only very few patients leading to rare events. Due to the limited study size, the p-values of testing whether the rate is higher in the treatment group across all types of adverse events are in general not uniformly distributed under the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the treatment group and the placebo group. A consequence is that typically fewer than (Formula presented.) percent of the hypotheses are rejected under the null at the nominal significance level of (Formula presented.). The other challenge is multiplicity control. Adverse events from the same body system may be correlated. There may also be correlations between adverse events from different body systems. To tackle these challenging issues, we develop Monte-Carlo-based methods for the signal identification from patient-reported adverse events in clinical trials. The proposed methodologies account for the rare events and arbitrary correlation structures among adverse events within and/or between body systems. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method can accurately control the family-wise error rate and is more powerful than existing methods under many practical situations. Application to two real examples is provided

Control-based imputation for sensitivity analyses in informative censoring for recurrent event data

In clinical trials, missing data commonly arise through nonadherence to the randomized treatment or to study procedure. For trials in which recurrent event endpoints are of interests, conventional analyses using the proportional intensity model or the count model assume that the data are missing at random, which cannot be tested using the observed data alone. Thus, sensitivity analyses are recommended. We implement the control-based multiple imputation as sensitivity analyses for the recurrent event data. We model the recurrent event using a piecewise exponential proportional intensity model with frailty and sample the parameters from the posterior distribution. We impute the number of events after dropped out and correct the variance estimation using a bootstrap procedure. We apply the method to an application of sitagliptin study

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate

Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Ischemic Stroke Aged ≥90 Years: A Cohort Study From the TRISP Collaboration

Background: The probability to receive intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for treatment of acute ischemic stroke declines with increasing age and is consequently the lowest in very elderly patients. Safety concerns likely influence individual IVT treatment decisions. Using data from a large IVT registry, we aimed to provide more evidence on safety of IVT in the very elderly. Methods: In this prospective multicenter study from the TRISP (Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients) registry, we compared patients ≥90 years with those <90 years using symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ECASS [European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study]-II criteria), death, and poor functional outcome in survivors (modified Rankin Scale score 3-5 for patients with prestroke modified Rankin Scale score ≤2 and modified Rankin Scale score 4-5 for patients prestroke modified Rankin Scale ≥3) at 3 months as outcomes. We calculated adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI using logistic regression models. Results: Of 16 974 eligible patients, 976 (5.7%) were ≥90 years. Patients ≥90 years had higher median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale on admission (12 versus 8) and were more often dependent prior to the index stroke (prestroke modified Rankin Scale score of ≥3; 45.2% versus 7.4%). Occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (5.7% versus 4.4%, odds ratioadjusted 1.14 [0.83-1.57]) did not differ significantly between both groups. However, the probability of death (odds ratioadjusted 3.77 [3.14-4.53]) and poor functional outcome (odds ratioadjusted 2.63 [2.13-3.25]) was higher in patients aged ≥90 years. Results for the sample of centenarians (n=21) were similar. Conclusions: The probability of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after IVT in very elderly patients with stroke did not exceed that of their younger counterparts. The higher probability of death and poor functional outcome during follow-up in the very elderly seems not to be related to IVT treatment. Very high age itself should not be a reason to withhold IVT. © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc