A comparison of the multilevel MIMIC model to the multilevel regression and mixed ANOVA model for the estimation and testing of a cross-level interaction effect: A simulation study

When observing data on a patient-reported outcome measure in, for example, clinical trials, the variables observed are often correlated and intended to measure a latent variable. In addition, such data are also often characterized by a hierarchical structure, meaning that the outcome is repeatedly measured within patients. To analyze such data, it is important to use an appropriate statistical model, such as structural equation modeling (SEM). However, researchers may rely on simpler statistical models that are applied to an aggregated data structure. For example, correlated variables are combined into one sum score that approximates a latent variable. This may have implications when, for example, the sum score consists of indicators that relate differently to the latent variable being measured. This study compares three models that can be applied to analyze such data: the multilevel multiple indicators multiple causes (ML-MIMIC) model, a univariate multilevel model, and a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The focus is on the estimation of a cross-level interaction effect that presents the difference over time on the patient-reported outcome between two treatment groups. The ML-MIMIC model is an SEM-type model that considers the relationship between the indicators and the latent variable in a multilevel setting, whereas the univariate multilevel and mixed ANOVA model rely on sum scores to approximate the latent variable. In addition, the mixed ANOVA model uses aggregated second-level means as outcome. This study showed that the ML-MIMIC model produced unbiased cross-level interaction effect estimates when the relationships between the indicators and the latent variable being measured varied across indicators. In contrast, under similar conditions, the univariate multilevel and mixed ANOVA model underestimated the cross-level interaction effect

Praktijkgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek:Onderzoekmanifest LOOK

manifest over praktijkgericht onderzoek

The Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design in oncology: experience and methodological reflections

A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, the participants provide consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to the treatment or standard of care. Patients randomized to the treatment arm are offered the new treatment, which they can choose to refuse. Patients who refuse will receive standard of care instead. Patients randomized to the standard of care arm receive no information about the trial and continue receiving standard of care as part of the cohort study. Standard cohort measures are used for outcome comparisons. The TwiCs study design aims to overcome some issues encountered in standard Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). An example of an issue in standard RCTs is the slow patient accrual. A TwiCs study aims to improve this by selecting patients using a cohort and only offering the intervention to patients in the intervention arm. In oncology, the TwiCs study design has gained increasing interest during the last decade. Despite its potential advantages over RCTs, the TwiCs study design has several methodological challenges that need careful consideration when planning a TwiCs study. In this article, we focus on these challenges and reflect on them using experiences from TwiCs studies initiated in oncology. Important methodological challenges that are discussed are the timing of randomization, the issue of non-compliance (refusal) after randomization in the intervention arm, and the definition of the intention-to-treat effect in a TwiCs study and how this effect is related to its counterpart in standard RCTs

A randomized multicenter study of the outcome of brachial-basilic arteriovenous fistula and prosthetic brachial-antecubital forearm loop as vascular access for hemodialysis

BackgroundVascular access is a necessity for patients with end-stage renal disease who need chronic intermittent hemodialysis. According to Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines, radial-cephalic (RC) and brachial-cephalic (BC) arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are the first and second choice for vascular access, respectively. If these options are not possible, an autogenous brachial-basilic fistula in the upper arm (BBAVF) or a prosthetic brachial-antecubital forearm loop (PTFE loop) may be considered. Until now, it was not clear which access type was preferable. We have performed a randomized study comparing BBAVF and prosthetic implantation in patients without the possibility for RCAVF or BCAVF.MethodsPatients with failed primary/secondary access or inadequate arterial and/or venous vessels were randomized for either BBAVF or PTFE loop creation. The numbers of complications and interventions were recorded. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate primary, assisted-primary and secondary patency rates. The patency rates were compared with the log-rank test. Complication and intervention rates were compared with the Mann-Whitney test.ResultsA total of 105 patients were randomized for a BBAVF or PTFE loop (52 vs 53, respectively). Primary and assisted-primary 1-year patency rates were significantly higher in the BBAVF group: 46% ± 7.4% vs 22% ± 6.1% (P = .005) and 87% ± 5.0% vs 71% ± 6.7% (P = .045) for the BBAVF and PTFE group, respectively. Secondary patencies were comparable for both groups; 89% ± 4.6% vs 85% ± 5.2% for the BBAVF and PTFE group, respectively. The incidence rate of complications was 1.6 per patient-year in the BBAVF group vs 2.7 per patient-year in the PTFE group. Patients in the BBAVF group needed a total of 1.7 interventions per patient-year vs 2.7 per patient-year for the PTFE group.ConclusionThese data show a significantly better primary and assisted-primary patency in the BBAVF group compared with the PTFE group. Furthermore, in the BBAVF group, fewer interventions were needed. Therefore, we conclude that BBAVF is the preferred choice for vascular access if RCAVF or BCAVF creation is impossible, or when these types of access have already failed

Visualization of Coronary Wall Atherosclerosis in Asymptomatic Subjects and Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is sensitive to early atherosclerotic changes such as positive remodeling in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We assessed prevalence, quality, and extent of coronary atherosclerosis in a group of healthy subjects compared to patients with confirmed CAD. Methodology: Twenty-two patients with confirmed CAD (15M, 7F, mean age 60.4±10.4 years) and 26 healthy subjects without history of CAD (11M, 15F, mean age 56.1±4.4 years) underwent MRI of the right coronary artery (RCA) and vessel wall (MR-CVW) on a clinical 1.5T MR-scanner. Wall thickness measurements of both groups were compared. Principal Findings: Stenoses of the RCA (both < and ≥50% on CAG) were present in all patients. In 21/22 patients, stenoses detected at MRI corresponded to stenoses detected with conventional angiography. In 19/26 asymptomatic subjects, there was visible luminal narrowing in the MR luminography images. Fourteen of these subjects demonstrated corresponding increase in vessel wall thickness. In 4/26 asymptomatic subjects, vessel wall thickening without luminal narrowing was present. Maximum and mean wall thicknesses in patients were significantly higher (2.16 vs 1.92 mm, and 1.38 vs 1.22 mm, both p<0.05). Conclusions: In this cohort of middle-aged individuals, both patients with stable angina and angiographically proven coronary artery disease, as well as age-matched asymptomatic subjects. exhibited coronary vessel wall thickening detectable with MR coronary vessel wall imaging. Maximum and mean wall thicknesses were significantly higher in patients. The vast majority of asymptomatic subjects had either positive remodeling without luminal narrowing, or non-significant stenosis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00456950

Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial

INTRODUCTION: In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.</p

Adaptive FDG-PET/CT guided dose escalation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Late toxicity and oncologic outcomes (The ADMIRE study)

PURPOSE: To report on the late toxicity and local control (LC) of head and neck cancer patients treated with adaptive FDG-PET/CT response-guided radiotherapy (ADMIRE) with dose escalation (NCT03376386). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2017 and April 2019, 20 patients with stage II-IV squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx, hypopharynx or oropharynx were treated within the ADMIRE study where FDG-PET/CT response-guided (Week 2&4) dose escalation was applied (total dose 70-78 Gy). Cisplatin or cetuximab was added to radiotherapy in case of T3-4 and/or N2c disease. To compare the LC and late toxicity of the study population, we used an external control group (n = 67) consisting of all eligible patients for the study (but not participated). These patients were treated in our institution during the same period with the current standard of 70 Gy radiotherapy. To reduce the effect of confounding, logistic regression analyses was done using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (SIPTW). RESULTS: After median follow-up of 40 and 43 months for the ADMIRE and control groups, the 3-year LC-rates were 74% and 78%, respectively (adjusted HR after SIPTW 0.80, 95 %CI 0.25-2.52, p = 0.70). The incidences of any late G3 toxicity were 35% and 18%, respectively. The adjusted OR for any late G3 toxicity was 5.09 (95 %CI 1.64-15.8, p = 0.005), for any late G ≥ 2 toxicity was 3.67 (95 %CI 1.2-11.7, p = 0.02), for persistent laryngeal edema was 10.95 (95% CI 2.71-44.29, p = 0.001), for persistent mucosal ulcers was 4.67 (95% CI 1.23-17.7, p = 0.023), and for late G3 radionecrosis was 15.69 (95 %CI 2.43-101.39, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Given the comparable LC rates with increased late toxicity in the ADMIRE group, selection criteria for future adaptive dose escalation trials (preferably randomized) need to be refined to include only patients at higher risk of local failure and/or lower risk of severe late toxicity