Large Sample Size Fallacy in Trials About Antipsychotics for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Dementia

Background: A typical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia have been tested in much larger trials than the older conventional drugs. The advantage of larger sample sizes is that negative findings become less likely and the effect estimates more precise. However, as sample sizes increase, the trials also get more expensive and time consuming while exposing more patients to drugs with unknown safety profiles. Moreover, a large sample size might yield a statistically significant effect that is not necessarily clinically relevant. Objective: To assess (1) the variation in sample size and sample size calculations of antipsychotic trials in dementia, (2) the size of reported treatment effects and related statistical significance, and (3) general study characteristics that might be related to sample size. Study Design and Setting: We performed a meta-epidemiological study of randomized trials that tested antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. The trials compared conventional or atypical antipsychotics with placebo or another antipsychotic. Two reviewers independently extracted sample size, sample size calculations, reported treatment effects with p-values, and general study characteristics (drug type, trial duration, type of funding). We calculated a reference sample size of 83 and 433 per study group for the placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials respectively. Results: We identified 33 placebo-controlled trials, and 18 head-to-head trials. Only 14 (42%) and 2 (11%), respectively, reported a sample size calculation. The average sample size per arm was 34 (range 6-179) in placebo-controlled trials testing conventional drugs, 107 (8-237) in such trials testing atypical drugs, and 104 (95-115) in such trials testing both drug types; it was 31 (10-88) in head-to-head trials. Thirteen out of 18 trials with sample sizes larger than required (72%) reported a statistically significant treatment effect, of which two (15%) were clinically relevant. None of the head-to-head trials reported a statistically significant treatment effect, even though some suggested non-inferiority. In placebo-controlled trials of atypical drugs, longer trial duration (>6 weeks) and commercial funding were associated with higher sample size. Conclusion: Sample size calculations were poorly reported in antipsychotic trials for dementia. Placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics showed large sample size fallacy while head-to-head trials were massively underpowered

Subjective Versus Objective Outcomes of Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Associated with Dementia

Background Knowledge about treatment status can influence effects measured in trials when subjective scales are used. Objective The aim of this study was to compare subjective outcomes with objective outcomes of conventional and atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia. Methods We performed a meta-epidemiological study of 38 randomized, placebo-controlled trials. For effectiveness, we used change in NPS and response rate as subjective outcomes, while overall dropout and additional psychotropic use were used as objective outcomes. For side effects, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and somnolence were used as subjective outcomes, while dropout due to adverse events, medication use for EPS, and participants falling were used as objective outcomes. Results Conventional antipsychotics reduced NPS more than placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.49 to - 0.23), as did atypical antipsychotics (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.08). Response rates in the drug groups were also higher. Overall dropout did not differ between conventional antipsychotics and placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.37) or atypical antipsychotics and placebo (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.14). Furthermore, additional psychotropic use did not differ. The risk of EPS was higher for conventional (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.04-4.22) and atypical antipsychotics (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88) versus placebo, as was the risk of somnolence and dropout due to adverse events, but medication use for EPS, as well as risk of falls, was not. Conclusions The effectiveness of antipsychotics for NPS in dementia based on subjective scales was not confirmed using objective outcomes, in contrast to the increased risk of side effects

Terminal illness and the increased mortality risk of conventional antipsychotics in observational studies:a systematic review

IntroductionNumerous large observational studies have shown an increased risk of mortality in elderly users of conventional antipsychotics. Health authorities have warned against use of these drugs. However, terminal illness is a potentially strong confounder of the observational findings. So, the objective of this study was to systematically assess whether terminal illness may have biased the observational association between conventional antipsychotics and risk of mortality in elderly patients. MethodsStudies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, the references of selected studies and articles referring to selected studies (Web of Science). Inclusion criteria were (i) observational studies that estimated (ii) the risk of all-cause mortality in (iii) new elderly users of (iv) conventional antipsychotics compared with atypical antipsychotics or no use. Two investigators assessed the characteristics of the exposure and reference groups, main results, measured confounders and methods used to adjust for unmeasured confounders. ResultsWe identified 21 studies. All studies were based on administrative medical and pharmaceutical databases. Sicker and older patients received conventional antipsychotics more often than new antipsychotics. The risk of dying was especially high in the first month of use, and when haloperidol was administered per injection or in high doses. Terminal illness was not measured in any study. Instrumental variables that were used were also confounded by terminal illness. ConclusionsWe conclude that terminal illness has not been adjusted for in observational studies that reported an increased risk of mortality risk in elderly users of conventional antipsychotics. As the validity of the evidence is questionable, so is the warning based on it. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Adherence and Wearing Time of Prescribed Footwear among People at Risk of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers: Which Measure to Use?

Adherence to prescribed footwear is essential to prevent diabetes-related foot ulcers. The aim was to compare different measures of adherence and wearing time of prescribed footwear with a reference adherence measure, among people with diabetes at high risk of foot ulceration. We followed 53 participants for 7 consecutive days. A temperature sensor measured wearing time of prescribed footwear and a triaxial accelerometer assessed weight-bearing activities. Subjective wearing time was self-reported. Reference adherence measure was proportion of weight-bearing time prescribed footwear was worn. We calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients, kappa coefficients, and areas under the curve (AUC) for the association between the reference measure and other measures of adherence and wearing time. Proportion of daily steps with prescribed footwear worn had a very strong association (r = 0.96, Κ = 0.93; AUC: 0.96-1.00), objective wearing time had a strong association (r = 0.91, Κ = 0.85, AUC: 0.89-0.99), and subjective wearing time had a weak association (r = 0.42, Κ = 0.38, AUC: 0.67-0.81) with the reference measure. Objectively measured proportion of daily steps with prescribed footwear is a valid measure of footwear adherence. Objective wearing time is reasonably valid, and may be used in clinical practice and for long-term measurements. Subjective wearing time is not recommended to be used

Adherence and Wearing Time of Prescribed Footwear among People at Risk of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers: Which Measure to Use?

Adherence to prescribed footwear is essential to prevent diabetes-related foot ulcers. The aim was to compare different measures of adherence and wearing time of prescribed footwear with a reference adherence measure, among people with diabetes at high risk of foot ulceration. We followed 53 participants for 7 consecutive days. A temperature sensor measured wearing time of prescribed footwear and a triaxial accelerometer assessed weight-bearing activities. Subjective wearing time was self-reported. Reference adherence measure was proportion of weight-bearing time prescribed footwear was worn. We calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficients, kappa coefficients, and areas under the curve (AUC) for the association between the reference measure and other measures of adherence and wearing time. Proportion of daily steps with prescribed footwear worn had a very strong association (r = 0.96, Κ = 0.93; AUC: 0.96–1.00), objective wearing time had a strong association (r = 0.91, Κ = 0.85, AUC: 0.89–0.99), and subjective wearing time had a weak association (r = 0.42, Κ = 0.38, AUC: 0.67–0.81) with the reference measure. Objectively measured proportion of daily steps with prescribed footwear is a valid measure of footwear adherence. Objective wearing time is reasonably valid, and may be used in clinical practice and for long-term measurements. Subjective wearing time is not recommended to be used

Baseline imbalances and clinical outcomes of atypical antipsychotics in dementia: A meta-epidemiological study of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES: To assess baseline imbalances in placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics in dementia, and their association with neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and mortality. METHOD: We searched for trials in multiple sources. Two reviewers extracted baseline characteristics and outcomes per treatment group. We calculated direction, range, pooled mean, and heterogeneity in the baseline differences, and used meta-regression for the relationship with the outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 23 trials. Baseline type of dementia, cognitive impairment and NPS were poorly reported. The drug group had a higher mean age than the placebo group in nine trials and lower mean age in three trials (p = 0.073). The difference in percentage men between the drug and placebo group ranged from -9.7% to 4.4%. There were no statistically significant pooled baseline differences, but heterogeneity was present for age. Higher mean age at baseline in the drug versus placebo group was significantly associated with greater reduction in NPS, and higher percentage of non-White persons with lower risk of EPS. Imbalances were not significantly associated with risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Randomized trials of atypical antipsychotics in dementia showed baseline imbalances that were associated with higher efficacy and lower risk of EPS for atypical antipsychotics versus placebo

Lupus anticoagulant associates with thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study

Background: Thrombosis is a frequent and severe complication in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is a strong acquired risk factor for thrombosis in various diseases and is frequently observed in patients with COVID-19. Whether LA is associated with thrombosis in patients with severe COVID-19 is currently unclear. Objective: To investigate if LA is associated with thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Patients/Methods: The presence of LA and other antiphospholipid antibodies was assessed in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. LA was determined with dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and LA-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) reagents. Results: Of 169 patients with COVID-19, 116 (69%) tested positive for at least one antiphospholipid antibody upon admission to the ICU. Forty (24%) patients tested positive for LA; of whom 29 (17%) tested positive with a dRVVT, 19 (11%) tested positive with an LA-sensitive aPTT, and 8 (5%) tested positive on both tests. Fifty-eight (34%) patients developed thrombosis after ICU admission. The odds ratio (OR) for thrombosis in patients with LA based on a dRVVT was 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–5.7), which increased to 4.5 (95% CI, 1.4–14.3) in patients at or below the median age in this study (64 years). LA positivity based on a dRVVT or LA-sensitive aPTT was only associated with thrombosis in patients aged less than 65 years (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.3–11.4) and disappeared after adjustment for C-reactive protein. Conclusion: Lupus anticoagulant on admission is strongly associated with thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially in patients aged less than 65 years

Lupus anticoagulant associates with thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study

Background: Thrombosis is a frequent and severe complication in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is a strong acquired risk factor for thrombosis in various diseases and is frequently observed in patients with COVID-19. Whether LA is associated with thrombosis in patients with severe COVID-19 is currently unclear. Objective: To investigate if LA is associated with thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Patients/Methods: The presence of LA and other antiphospholipid antibodies was assessed in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. LA was determined with dilute Russell's viper venom time (dRVVT) and LA-sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) reagents. Results: Of 169 patients with COVID-19, 116 (69%) tested positive for at least one antiphospholipid antibody upon admission to the ICU. Forty (24%) patients tested positive for LA; of whom 29 (17%) tested positive with a dRVVT, 19 (11%) tested positive with an LA-sensitive aPTT, and 8 (5%) tested positive on both tests. Fifty-eight (34%) patients developed thrombosis after ICU admission. The odds ratio (OR) for thrombosis in patients with LA based on a dRVVT was 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–5.7), which increased to 4.5 (95% CI, 1.4–14.3) in patients at or below the median age in this study (64 years). LA positivity based on a dRVVT or LA-sensitive aPTT was only associated with thrombosis in patients aged less than 65 years (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.3–11.4) and disappeared after adjustment for C-reactive protein. Conclusion: Lupus anticoagulant on admission is strongly associated with thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially in patients aged less than 65 years