Multiple imputation for patient reported outcome measures in randomised controlled trials : advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, subscale or composite score level

Background Missing data can introduce bias in the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but are typically unavoidable in pragmatic clinical research, especially when patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. Traditionally applied to the composite PROMs score of multi-item instruments, some recent research suggests that multiple imputation (MI) at the item level may be preferable under certain scenarios. This paper presents practical guidance on the choice of MI models for handling missing PROMs data based on the characteristics of the trial dataset. The comparative performance of complete cases analysis, which is commonly used in the analysis of RCTs, is also considered. Methods Realistic missing at random data were simulated using follow-up data from an RCT considering three different PROMs (Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12)). Data were multiply imputed at the item (using ordinal logit and predicted mean matching models), sub-scale and score level; unadjusted mean outcomes, as well as treatment effects from linear regression models were obtained for 1000 simulations. Performance was assessed by root mean square errors (RMSE) and mean absolute errors (MAE). Results Convergence problems were observed for MI at the item level. Performance generally improved with increasing sample sizes and lower percentages of missing data. Imputation at the score and subscale level outperformed imputation at the item level in small sample sizes (n ≤ 200). Imputation at the item level is more accurate for high proportions of item-nonresponse. All methods provided similar results for large sample sizes (≥500) in this particular case study. Conclusions Many factors, including the prevalence of missing data in the study, sample size, the number of items within the PROM and numbers of levels within the individual items, and planned analyses need consideration when choosing an imputation model for missing PROMs data

Exercise therapy with or without other physical therapy interventions versus placebo interventions for osteoarthritis - systematic review

Objective To evaluate whether exercise therapy, with or without other physical therapy interventions, is superior to placebo intervention for osteoarthritis (OA). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO were searched from inception to February 2021. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with OA investigating an intervention involving exercise therapy with a placebo comparator. Data extraction and analysis: Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain, function and quality of life (QoL). Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects model for short- and longer-term follow up. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results 13 RCTs involving 1079 patients were identified and included. Meta-analysis demonstrated improved pain (10 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -1.1 (95%CI -1.7 to −0.4)) and function (8 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -0.8 (95%CI -1.5 to −0.2)) in the short-term with exercise versus placebo, but no significant difference in the longer-term (pain 3 studies; function 3 studies). Conclusion Current evidence demonstrates that exercise therapy is superior to placebo in the short-term for pain and function in OA. The certainty of this evidence is low to very low and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effects

Comparison of statistical approaches for analyzing incomplete longitudinal patient-reported outcome data in randomized controlled trials

Purpose: Missing data are a potential source of bias in the results of RCTs, but are often unavoidable in clinical research, particularly in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Maximum likelihood (ML), multiple imputation (MI), and inverse probability weighting (IPW) can be used to handle incomplete longitudinal data. This paper compares their performance when analyzing PROMs, using a simulation study based on an RCT data set. Methods: Realistic missing-at-random data were simulated based on patterns observed during the follow-up of the knee arthroscopy trial (ISRCTN45837371). Simulation scenarios covered different sample sizes, with missing PROM data in 10%–60% of participants. Monotone and nonmonotone missing data patterns were considered. Missing data were addressed by using ML, MI, and IPW and analyzed via multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models. Root mean square errors in the treatment effects were used as performance parameters across 1,000 simulations. Results: Nonconvergence issues were observed for IPW at small sample sizes. The performance of all three approaches worsened with decreasing sample size and increasing proportions of missing data. MI and ML performed similarly when the MI model was restricted to baseline variables, but MI performed better when using postrandomization data in the imputation model and also in nonmonotone versus monotone missing data scenarios. IPW performed worse than ML and MI in all simulation scenarios. Conclusion: When additional postrandomization information is available, MI can be beneficial over ML for handling incomplete longitudinal PROM data. IPW is not recommended for handling missing PROM data in the simulated scenarios

Study of Peri-Articular Anaesthetic for Replacement of the Knee (SPAARK): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of peri-articular liposomal bupivacaine plus bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone

Background Up to three quarters of surgical patients receive inadequate pain relief, with 40% of patients reporting severe pain following knee replacement, which may indicate the current pain relief strategies using opiate-based analgesia cannot achieve patient satisfaction. Liposomal bupivacaine is liposome-encapsulated bupivacaine which has been reported to be effective for up to 72 h. The study of Peri-Articular Anaesthetic for Replacement of the Knee (SPAARK) trial has been designed to assess the effectiveness of peri-articular liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with peri-articular bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in the management of post-operative pain following knee replacement. Methods/design The SPAARK trial is a multi-centre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. The co-primary outcomes are post-operative recovery assessed by global QoR-40 scores at 72 h and cumulative pain VAS score from 6 to 72 h following surgery. Longer-term measures of the co-primary outcomes are collected at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months post randomisation, together with secondary outcomes, i.e. the Oxford Knee Score, and the American Knee Society Score. Cumulative opiate use and fitness for discharge are measured up to 72 h post-surgery. The analysis approaches for the primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. The full SPAARK protocol has already been published. Results The co-primary outcomes will be analysed using multivariate linear regression adjusting for stratification factors and other important prognostic variables, including baseline scores in the case of the QoR-40. The adjusted mean difference between the two groups together with 97.5% confidence intervals will be reported for each of the primary outcomes. Other continuous variables will be assessed using the same method. Binary outcomes will be assessed using chi-squared tests. Discussion The paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the SPAARK trial and aims to reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias from prior data knowledge. Any changes or deviations from this statistical analysis plan will be described and justified in the final study report

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression in patients with subacromial shoulder pain

Aims The aims of this study were to compare the use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with subacromial decompression, arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), and no treatment for subacromial pain in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and to estimate their cost-effectiveness. Patients and Methods The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping. Results Cumulative mean QALYs/mean costs of health care service use and surgery per patient from baseline to 12 months were estimated as 0.640 (standard error (se) 0.024)/£3147 (se 166) in the decompression arm, 0.656 (se 0.020)/£2830 (se 183) in the arthroscopy only arm and 0.522 (se 0.029)/£1451 (se 151) in the no treatment arm. Statistically significant differences in cumulative QALYs and costs were found at six and 12 months for the decompression versus no treatment comparison only. The probabilities of decompression being cost-effective compared with no treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY were close to 0% at six months and approximately 50% at one year, with this probability potentially increasing for the extrapolation to two years. Discussion The evidence for cost-effectiveness at 12 months was inconclusive. Decompression could be cost-effective in the longer-term, but results of this analysis are sensitive to the assumptions made about how costs and QALYs are extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the trial

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for early-stage Dupuytren’s disease

Aims: To estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with standard care alone for the treatment of early-stage Dupuytren’s disease (DD) and the value of further research from an NHS perspective. Methods: We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren’s disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded. Results: The within-trial economic evaluation found that adalimumab plus standard care cost £503,410 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus standard care alone over a 12-month time horizon. The model-based extrapolation suggested that, over a lifetime, repeated courses of adalimumab could cost £14,593 (95% confidence interval £7,534 to £42,698) per QALY gained versus standard care alone. If the NHS was willing to pay £20,000/QALY gained, there is a 77% probability that adalimumab with retreatment is the best value for money. Conclusion: Repeated courses of adalimumab are likely to be a cost-effective treatment for progressive early-stage DD. The value of perfect parameter information that would eliminate all uncertainty around the parameters estimated in RIDD and the duration of quiescence was estimated to be £105 per patient or £272 million for all 2,584,411 prevalent cases in the UK

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for early-stage Dupuytren's disease : an economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial and individual-patient simulation model.

This is the final version. Available from British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery via the DOI in this record. Data sharing: Aggregate data will be shared at the end of the trial with external researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal to the trial team (and will be required to sign a data sharing access agreement with the sponsor) and in accordance with the guidelines of the sponsor and funders. Model code may also be available in due course, on request. Study documents including participant consent form can also be made available. Requests for data or study documents should be directed to the corresponding author and will be considered by the chief investigator in conjunction with other members of the trial management group and the trials unit.AIMS: To estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with standard care alone for the treatment of early-stage Dupuytren's disease (DD) and the value of further research from an NHS perspective. METHODS: We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren's disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded. RESULTS: The within-trial economic evaluation found that adalimumab plus standard care cost £503,410 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus standard care alone over a 12-month time horizon. The model-based extrapolation suggested that, over a lifetime, repeated courses of adalimumab could cost £14,593 (95% confidence interval £7,534 to £42,698) per QALY gained versus standard care alone. If the NHS was willing to pay £20,000/QALY gained, there is a 77% probability that adalimumab with retreatment is the best value for money. CONCLUSION: Repeated courses of adalimumab are likely to be a cost-effective treatment for progressive early-stage DD. The value of perfect parameter information that would eliminate all uncertainty around the parameters estimated in RIDD and the duration of quiescence was estimated to be £105 per patient or £272 million for all 2,584,411 prevalent cases in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):898-906.Wellcome TrustDepartment of Health UK180 Therapeutics LPNational Institute for Health and Care Researc

Quality of life, healthcare use and costs in ‘at-risk’ children after early antibiotic treatment versus placebo for influenza-like illness : within-trial descriptive economic analyses of the ARCHIE randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To characterise the quality of life, healthcare use and costs associated with early antibiotic treatment of influenza-like illness (ILI) in ‘at-risk’ children. Design: Economic analysis of a two-arm double-blind parallel group pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Children were recruited from community-based healthcare settings, including general practices, walk-in centres and hospital ambulatory care. Participants: Children with risk factors for influenza-related complications, including respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions, who presented within the first 5 days of an ILI. Interventions: Co-amoxiclav 400/57 suspension or placebo. Outcome measures: This economic analysis focused on quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-Y, symptoms assessed by the Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale (CARIFS), healthcare use and costs including medication, hospital visits and admissions, general practitioner and nurse contacts. Outcomes were assessed for up to 28 days post randomisation. Results: Information on resource use, EQ-5D-Y (day 28) and CARIFS (day 7) was available for 265 (98%), 72 (27%) and 123 (45%) out of 271 participants, respectively. Average costs in the co-amoxiclav group were £25 lower (95% CI −£113 to £65), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.566). The difference in EQ-5D-Y scores between groups was also not statistically significant (−0.014 (95% CI −0.124 to 0.096), p=0.798). However, day 7 CARIFS scores were 3.5 points lower in the co-amoxiclav arm (95% CI −6.9 to −0.1, p=0.044). Conclusions: Our findings did not show evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces healthcare use and costs in ‘at-risk’ children with ILI, but may reduce symptom severity though confirmation from further research would be important. Reliable data collection from children’s parents/carers was challenging, and resulted in high levels of missing data, which is common in pragmatic trials involving children with acute respiratory tract infections. Trial registration number: ISRCTN70714783; EudraCT 2013-002822-21

Injection versus Decompression for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-Pilot trial (INDICATE-P)-protocol for a randomised feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the commonest peripheral nerve disorder in the UK, with over 52,996 carpal tunnel decompressions performed in 2011. By 2030, this figure is estimated to double. Whilst evidence supports conservative measures for mild symptoms, and early surgery for severe symptoms, controversy remains over the most appropriate management for patients that present with moderate disease, with regard to early surgery or late surgery following steroid injection. Injection versus Decompression for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-Pilot trial (INDICATE-P) is a feasibility study for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (INDICATE) to determine whether patients over the age of 18 with moderate CTS should undergo early surgical decompression of the median nerve or a single steroid injection (followed by later surgery if required). METHODS/DESIGN: INDICATE-P is a feasibility study for an open (non-blinded) randomised controlled pilot trial. Eligible participants will be adults with a clinical diagnosis of moderate CTS. This is defined as symptoms disturbing sleep or restricting activities of daily living or work, despite a 2-week trial of night splints. Participants will be randomised to one of two possible interventions: surgical decompression or a single steroid injection (followed by surgery later if required). Clinical outcome measures will be captured by postal questionnaire at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. In order to improve the study design for the main INDICATE trial, feasibility data will also be collected to identify difficulties in recruitment and retention, to gain patient feedback on questionnaires and to confirm the suitability of the proposed outcome measures. DISCUSSION: The INDICATE-P feasibility study will contribute to the design and execution of the INDICATE trial, which will seek to assess the safety and effectiveness of two approaches to treatment for patients over 18 years of age with moderate CTS: early carpal tunnel decompression or a single steroid injection (followed by later surgery)

The magnitude and temporal changes of response in the placebo arm of surgical randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Understanding changes in the placebo arm is essential for correct design and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that placebo response, defined as the total improvement in the placebo arm of surgical trials, is large; however, its precise magnitude and properties remain to be characterized. To the best of our knowledge, the temporal changes in the placebo arm have not been investigated. The aim of this paper was to determine, in surgical RCTs, the magnitude of placebo response and how it is affected by duration of follow-up. Methods The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to 20 October 2015 for studies comparing the efficacy of a surgical intervention with placebo. Inclusion was not limited to any particular condition, intervention, outcome or patient population. The magnitude of placebo response was estimated using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Study estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated using stratification and meta-regression. Results Database searches returned 88 studies, but for 41 studies SMDs could not be calculated, leaving 47 trials (involving 1744 participants) eligible for inclusion. There were no temporal changes in placebo response within the analysed trials. Meta-regression analysis showed that duration of follow-up did not have a significant effect on the magnitude of the placebo response and that the strongest predictor of placebo response was subjectivity of the outcome. The pooled effect in the placebo arm of studies with subjective outcomes was large (0.64, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8) and remained significantly different from zero regardless of the duration of follow-up, whereas for objective outcomes, the effect was small (0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26) or non-significant across all time points. Conclusions This is the first study to investigate the temporal changes of placebo response in surgical trials and the first to investigate the sources of heterogeneity of placebo response. Placebo response in surgical trials was large for subjective outcomes, persisting as a time-invariant effect throughout blinded follow-up. Therefore, placebo response cannot be minimized in these types of outcomes through their appraisal at alternative time points. The analyses suggest that objective outcomes may be preferable as trial end-points. Where subjective outcomes are of primary interest, a placebo arm is necessary to control for placebo response