Effect of Deutetrabenazine on Chorea Among Patients With Huntington Disease A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Deutetrabenazine is a novel molecule containing deuterium, which attenuates CYP2D6 metabolism and increases active metabolite half-lives and may therefore lead to stable systemic exposure while preserving key pharmacological activity. Objective To evaluate efficacy and safety of deutetrabenazine treatment to control chorea associated with Huntington disease. Design, Setting, and Participants Ninety ambulatory adults diagnosed with manifest Huntington disease and a baseline total maximal chorea score of 8 or higher (range, 0-28; lower score indicates less chorea) were enrolled from August 2013 to August 2014 and randomized to receive deutetrabenazine (n = 45) or placebo (n = 45) in a double-blind fashion at 34 Huntington Study Group sites. Interventions Deutetrabenazine or placebo was titrated to optimal dose level over 8 weeks and maintained for 4 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary end point was the total maximal chorea score change from baseline (the average of values from the screening and day-0 visits) to maintenance therapy (the average of values from the week 9 and 12 visits) obtained by in-person visits. This study was designed to detect a 2.7-unit treatment difference in scores. The secondary end points, assessed hierarchically, were the proportion of patients who achieved treatment success on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), the change in 36-Item Short Form– physical functioning subscale score (SF-36), and the change in the Berg Balance Test. Results Ninety patients with Huntington disease (mean age, 53.7 years; 40 women [44.4%]) were enrolled. In the deutetrabenazine group, the mean total maximal chorea scores improved from 12.1 (95% CI, 11.2-12.9) to 7.7 (95% CI, 6.5-8.9), whereas in the placebo group, scores improved from 13.2 (95% CI, 12.2-14.3) to 11.3 (95% CI, 10.0-12.5); the mean between-group difference was –2.5 units (95% CI, –3.7 to –1.3) (P < .001). Treatment success, as measured by the PGIC, occurred in 23 patients (51%) in the deutetrabenazine group vs 9 (20%) in the placebo group (P = .002). As measured by the CGIC, treatment success occurred in 19 patients (42%) in the deutetrabenazine group vs 6 (13%) in the placebo group (P = .002). In the deutetrabenazine group, the mean SF-36 physical functioning subscale scores decreased from 47.5 (95% CI, 44.3-50.8) to 47.4 (44.3-50.5), whereas in the placebo group, scores decreased from 43.2 (95% CI, 40.2-46.3) to 39.9 (95% CI, 36.2-43.6), for a treatment benefit of 4.3 (95% CI, 0.4 to 8.3) (P = .03). There was no difference between groups (mean difference of 1.0 unit; 95% CI, –0.3 to 2.3; P = .14), for improvement in the Berg Balance Test, which improved by 2.2 units (95% CI, 1.3-3.1) in the deutetrabenazine group and by 1.3 units (95% CI, 0.4-2.2) in the placebo group. Adverse event rates were similar for deutetrabenazine and placebo, including depression, anxiety, and akathisia. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with chorea associated with Huntington disease, the use of deutetrabenazine compared with placebo resulted in improved motor signs at 12 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the clinical importance of the effect size and to determine longer-term efficacy and safety

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis

In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists’ gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for organizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed