Robust alternatives to ANCOVA for estimating the treatment effect via a randomized comparative study

In comparing two treatments via a randomized clinical trial, the analysis of covari- ance technique is often utilized to estimate an overall treatment effect. The ANCOVA is generally perceived as a more efficient procedure than its simple two sample estima- tion counterpart. Unfortunately when the ANCOVA model is not correctly specified, the resulting estimator is generally not consistent especially when the model is nonlin- ear. Recently various nonparametric alternatives, such as the augmentation methods, to ANCOVA have been proposed to estimate the treatment effect by adjusting the covariates. However, the properties of these alternatives have not been studied in the presence of treatment allocation imbalance. In this paper, we take a different approach to explore how to improve the precision of the naive two-sample estimate even when the observed distributions of baseline covariates between two groups are dissimilar. Specifically, we derive a bias-adjusted estimation procedure constructed from a condi- tional inference principle via relevant ancillary statistics from the observed covariates. This estimator is shown to be asymptotically equivalent to an augmentation estimator under the conditional setting. We utilize the data from a clinical trial for evaluating a combination treatment of cardiovascular diseases to illustrate our findings

The Myth Of Making Inferences For An Overall Treatment Efficacy With Data From Multiple Comparative Studies Via Meta-analysis

Meta analysis techniques, if applied appropriately, can provide a summary of the totality of evidence regarding an overall difference between a new treatment and a control group using data from multiple comparative clinical studies. The standard meta analysis procedures, however, may not give a meaningful between-group difference summary measure or identify a meaningful patient population of interest, especially when the fixed effect model assumption is not met. Moreover, a single between-group comparison measure without a reference value obtained from patients in the control arm would likely not be informative enough for clinical decision making. In this paper, we propose a simple, robust procedure based on a mixture population concept and provide a clinically meaningful group contrast summary for a well-defined target population. We use the data from a recent meta analysis for evaluating statin therapies with respect to the incidence of fatal stroke events to illustrate the issues associated with the standard meta analysis procedures as well as the advantages of our simple proposal

Prevalence of prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF and associated clinical outcomes

Purpose: The prevalence and consequences of prediabetic dysglycemia and undiagnosed diabetes is unknown in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and has not been compared to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We examined the prevalence and outcomes associated with normoglycemia, prediabetic dysglycemia and diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among individuals with a baseline glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c) measurement stratified by HFrEF or HFpEF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme (CHARM). We studied the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause death, and estimated hazard ratios (HR) by use of multivariable Cox regression models. Results: HbA1c was measured at baseline in CHARM patients enrolled in the USA and Canada and was available in 1072/3023 (35%) of patients with HFpEF and 1578/4576 (34%) patients with HFrEF. 18 and 16% had normoglycemia (HbA1c < 6.0), 20 and 22% had prediabetes (HbA1c 6.0–6.4), respectively. Finally among patients with HFpEF 22% had undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c > 6.4), and 40% had known diabetes (any HbA1c), with corresponding prevalence among HFrEF patients being 26 and 35%. The rates of both clinical outcomes of interest were higher in patients with undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, compared to normoglycemic patients, irrespective of HF subtype, and in general higher among HFrEF patients. For the primary composite outcome among HFpEF patients, the HRs were 1.02 (95% CI 0.63–1.65) for prediabetes, HR 1.18 (0.75–1.86) for undiagnosed diabetes and 2.75 (1.83–4.11) for known diabetes, respectively, p value for trend across groups < 0.001. Dysglycemia was also associated with worse outcomes in HFrEF. Conclusions: These findings confirm the remarkably high prevalence of dysglycemia in heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction phenotype, and demonstrate that dysglycemia is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, even before the diagnosis of diabetes and institution of glucose lowering therapy in patients with HFpEF as well as HFrEF

Additive Beneficial Effects of Beta-Blockers to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study fn1fn1This study was supported by a University-Industry grant from the Medical Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and Bristol Myers Squibb, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

AbstractObjectives. This study assessed whether treatment with a beta-adrenergic blocking agent in addition to the use of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor captopril decreases cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI) and whether the presence of neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge predicts the effects of beta-blocker treatment in these patients.Background. Both beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects in patients with left ventricular dysfunction but no overt heart failure after MI. These patients often have persistent neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge, and one would expect that patients with activation of the sympathetic nervous system derive the most benefit from treatment with beta-blockers. However, beta-blockers are underutilized in this high risk group of patients, and it is unknown whether their beneficial effects are additive to those of ACE inhibitors.Methods. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study and its neurohumoral substudy. The relations between beta-blocker use at the time of randomization and neurohumoral activation and the subsequent development of cardiovascular events were analyzed by use of Cox proportional hazards models controlling for covariates.Results. After adjustment for baseline imbalances, beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in risk of cardiovascular death (30%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 44%) and development of heart failure (21%, 95% CI 3% to 36%), but the reduction in recurrent MI (11%, 95% CI 13% to 31%) was not significant. These reductions were independent of the use of captopril. Beta-blockers were not found to have a greater effect in patients with neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge.Conclusions. The beneficial effects of beta-blocker use at the time of hospital discharge in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after MI appear to be additive to those of captopril and other interventions known to improve prognosis. Neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge fails to identify those patients who will derive the greatest benefit from treatment with beta-blockers.(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:229–36

Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System inhibitors in patients with Covid-19

No abstract available

C-Reactive protein and risk of ESRD: results from the Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events With Aranesp Therapy (TREAT)

Background: To better understand a potential association of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level with progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), we examined the relationship of CRP level with the development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events With Aranesp Therapy (TREAT). Study Design Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Setting & Participants: 4,038 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and anemia in TREAT. Predictor: Baseline serum CRP concentrations. Outcomes: The primary outcome was development of ESRD; secondary outcomes included doubling of serum creatinine level, a composite of ESRD/serum creatinine doubling, and a composite of death or ESRD. Measurements: We fit unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression models to test the association of baseline CRP level with time to the development of the outcomes of interest. Results: Mean age of participants was 67 years, 43% were men, and 64% were white. Approximately half (48%) the patients had CRP levels > 3.0 mg/L; 668 patients developed ESRD, and 1,270 developed the composite outcome of death or ESRD. Compared with patients with baseline CRP levels ≤ 3.0 mg/L, those with moderately/markedly elevated CRP levels (≥6.9 mg/L; 24% of patients) had a higher adjusted risk for ESRD (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63) and the composite outcome of death or ESRD (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64). Although nonsignificant, similar trends were noted in competing-risk models. Limitations: Results may not be generalizable to nondiabetic CKD or diabetic CKD in the absence of anemia. Conclusions: Elevated baseline CRP levels are common in type 2 diabetic patients with anemia and CKD and are associated with the future development of ESRD and the composite of death or ESRD