Implications of missing data in tuberculosis non-inferiority clinical trials

Non-inferiority designs have been increasingly used in randomised clinical trials in recent years. However, there remain several key issues with this design that can have important implications for the primary analysis and its interpretation. Specifically, choosing the population for inclusion in the primary analysis and how to deal with missing values, remains unclear. This thesis tackles three related methodological issues in tuberculosis (TB) clinical trials: (i) a lack of clear guidance on design and reporting; (ii) the need for a valid approach to missing data and (iii) how to perform sensitivity analysis. First, widely available guidance documents on non-inferiority trials are critiqued, highlighting differences in recommendations between them on fundamental issues. These differences are reflected in inconsistent reporting from a systematic review we conducted, and make suggestions for improvements. Second, using data from two recent TB non-inferiority trials, we compare and contrast (i) different imputation approaches, (ii) inverse probability weighting with marginal models, and (iii) multi-state Markov models, for handling missing outcome data under the missing at random assumption. We find a form of multiple imputation is the best practical approach. Third, we explore sensitivity analysis to the missing at random assumption, and show how a “reference based” method provides an accessible, practical approach. In conclusion, more appropriate guidelines and analyses for non-inferiority trials in TB are needed, and some proposals are made to this end. Based on these findings, it is proposed that missing data in TB non-inferiority trials should be handled using the “two-fold” multiple imputation algorithm for imputing the missing data. By imputing the data in this way uses all the information available and allows for the trials defined primary outcome to be determined for each patient. Following this, reference based sensitivity analysis should be utilised

Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines. DESIGN: Review of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). DATA SOURCES: Ovid (MEDLINE). METHODS: We searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used. RESULTS: A total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

Abstract Background: Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. Methods: We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. Results: TRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination). TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient's care, while reducing the potential for bias. Conclusions: When blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias

A dose ranging trial to optimize the dose of Rifampin in the treatment of tuberculosis

The study was funded by the EDCTP (European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership), NACCAP (Netherlands-African partnership for Capacity development and Clinical interventions Against Poverty-related diseases) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Rationale: Rifampin at a dose of 10 mg/kg was introduced in 1971 based on pharmacokinetic, toxicity and cost considerations. Available data in mice and humans showed that an increase in dose may shorten the duration of tuberculosis treatment. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and tolerability, the pharmacokinetics and the extended early bactericidal activity of increasing doses of rifampin. Methods: Patients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis were enrolled into a control group of 8 patients receiving the standard dose of 10 mg/kg rifampin, followed by consecutive experimental groups with 15 patients each receiving rifampin 20 mg/kg, 25 mg/kg, 30 mg/kg and 35 mg/kg, respectively, for 14 days. In all patients isoniazid, pyrazinamide and ethambutol were added in standard doses for the second 7 days of treatment. Safety, pharmacokinetics of rifampin, and fall in bacterial load were assessed. Measurements and Main Results: Grade 1 and 2 adverse events were equally distributed between the five dose groups; there were 5 grade 3 events of which 1 was a possibly related hepatotoxicity. Areas under the time-concentration curves and peak serum concentrations of rifampin showed a more than proportional increase with dose. The daily fall in bacterial load over 14 days was 0.176, 0.168, 0.167, 0.265, and 0.261 log10CFU/ml sputum in the 10, 20, 25, 30 and 35 mg/kg groups respectively. Conclusions: Two weeks of rifampin up to 35 mg/kg was safe and well tolerated. There was a non-linear increase in exposure to rifampin without an apparent ceiling effect and a greater estimated fall in bacterial load in the higher dosing groups. Clinical trial registration available at www.clinicaltrials.gove, ID NCT01392911.PostprintPeer reviewe

Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials

Objective Unblinded outcome assessment can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised trials. We reviewed published trials to assess how often blinded assessment is used, and whether its use varies according to the type of outcome or assessor. Design and setting A review of parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Main outcome measures Whether assessment of the primary outcome was blinded, and whether this differed according to outcome or assessor type. Results We identified 258 eligible trials. Of these, 106 (41%) were reported as double-blind, and 152 (59%) as partially or fully open-label (that is, they included some groups who were unblinded, such as patients, those delivering the intervention, or those in charge of medical care). Of the 152 open trials, 125 required outcome assessment. Of these 125 trials, only 26% stated that outcome assessment was blinded; 51% gave no information on whether assessment was blinded or not. Furthermore, 18% of trials did not state who performed the assessment. The choice of outcome type (e.g. instrument measured, rated, or naturally occurring event) did not appear to influence whether blinded assessment was performed (range 24-32% for the most common outcome types). However, the choice of outcome assessor did influence blinding; independent assessors were blinded much more frequently (71%) than participant (5%) or physician (24%) assessors. Despite this, open trials did not use independent assessors any more frequently than double-blind trials (17% vs. 18% respectively). Conclusions Blinding of outcome assessors is infrequently used and poorly reported. Increased use of independent assessors could increase the frequency of blinded assessment

Risk of selection bias in randomised trials

Background: Selection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice. Methods: We performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Results: We identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%). Conclusions: The risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

Background Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. Methods We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. Results TRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination). TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient’s care, while reducing the potential for bias. Conclusions When blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias

Balkan: od geografije do fantazije, Katarina Luketić

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is the world's leading infectious disease killer. We aimed to identify shorter, safer drug regimens for the treatment of tuberculosis. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled, open-label trial with a multi-arm, multi-stage design. The trial was done in seven sites in South Africa and Tanzania, including hospitals, health centres, and clinical trial centres. Patients with newly diagnosed, rifampicin-sensitive, previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:2 ratio to receive (all orally) either 35 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 15-20 mg/kg ethambutol, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 400 mg moxifloxacin, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, or a daily standard control regimen (10 mg/kg rifampicin, 5 mg/kg isoniazid, 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide, and 15-20 mg/kg ethambutol). Experimental treatments were given with oral 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide per day for 12 weeks, followed by 14 weeks of 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day. Because of the orange discoloration of body fluids with higher doses of rifampicin it was not possible to mask patients and clinicians to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to culture conversion in liquid media within 12 weeks. Patients without evidence of rifampicin resistance on phenotypic test who took at least one dose of study treatment and had one positive culture on liquid or solid media before or within the first 2 weeks of treatment were included in the primary analysis (modified intention to treat). Time-to-event data were analysed using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model and adjusted for minimisation variables. The proportional hazard assumption was tested using Schoelfeld residuals, with threshold p<0.05 for non-proportionality. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01785186). FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2013, and March 25, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; 59 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, SQ109; 57 to rifampicin 20 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and SQ109; 63 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin; and 123 to the control arm). Recruitment was stopped early in the arms containing SQ109 since prespecified efficacy thresholds were not met at the planned interim analysis. Time to stable culture conversion in liquid media was faster in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin group than in the control group (median 48 days vs 62 days, adjusted hazard ratio 1.78; 95% CI 1.22-2.58, p=0.003), but not in other experimental arms. There was no difference in any of the groups in time to culture conversion on solid media. 11 patients had treatment failure or recurrent disease during post-treatment follow-up: one in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin arm and none in the moxifloxacin arm. 45 (12%) of 365 patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events, with similar proportions in each arm. INTERPRETATION: A dose of 35 mg/kg rifampicin was safe, reduced the time to culture conversion in liquid media, and could be a promising component of future, shorter regimens. Our adaptive trial design was successfully implemented in a multi-centre, high tuberculosis burden setting, and could speed regimen development at reduced cost. FUNDING: The study was funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials partnership (EDCTP), the German Ministry for Education and Research (BmBF), and the Medical Research Council UK (MRC)

Randomized controlled trial of urokinase versus placebo for nondraining malignant pleural effusion

Rationale: Patients with malignant pleural effusion experience breathlessness, which is treated by drainage and pleurodesis. Incomplete drainage results in residual dyspnea and pleurodesis failure. Intrapleural fibrinolytics lyse septations within pleural fluid, improving drainage. Objectives: To assess the effects of intrapleural urokinase on dyspnea and pleurodesis success in patients with nondraining malignant effusion. Methods: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients with nondraining effusion were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to intrapleural urokinase (100,000 IU, three doses, 12-hourly) or matched placebo. Measurements and Main Results: Co–primary outcome measures were dyspnea (average daily 100-mm visual analog scale scores over 28 d) and time to pleurodesis failure to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were survival, hospital length of stay, and radiographic change. A total of 71 subjects were randomized (36 received urokinase, 35 placebo) from 12 U.K. centers. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference in mean dyspnea between groups (mean difference, 3.8 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 4.4 mm; P = 0.36). Pleurodesis failure rates were similar (urokinase, 13 of 35 [37%]; placebo, 11 of 34 [32%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; P = 0.65). Urokinase was associated with decreased effusion size visualized by chest radiography (adjusted relative improvement, −19%; 95% CI, −28 to −11%; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (1.6 d; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6; P = 0.049), and improved survival (69 vs. 48 d; P = 0.026). Conclusions: Use of intrapleural urokinase does not reduce dyspnea or improve pleurodesis success compared with placebo and cannot be recommended as an adjunct to pleurodesis. Other palliative treatments should be used. Improvements in hospital stay, radiographic appearance, and survival associated with urokinase require further evaluation. Clinical trial registered with ISRCTN (12852177) and EudraCT (2008-000586-26)