Comparison of results from different imputation techniques for missing data from an anti-obesity drug trial

BackgroundIn randomised trials of medical interventions, the most reliable analysis follows the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. However, the ITT analysis requires that missing outcome data have to be imputed. Different imputation techniques may give different results and some may lead to bias. In anti-obesity drug trials, many data are usually missing, and the most used imputation method is last observation carried forward (LOCF). LOCF is generally considered conservative, but there are more reliable methods such as multiple imputation (MI).ObjectivesTo compare four different methods of handling missing data in a 60-week placebo controlled anti-obesity drug trial on topiramate.MethodsWe compared an analysis of complete cases with datasets where missing body weight measurements had been replaced using three different imputation methods: LOCF, baseline carried forward (BOCF) and MI.Results561 participants were randomised. Compared to placebo, there was a significantly greater weight loss with topiramate in all analyses: 9.5 kg (SE 1.17) in the complete case analysis (N = 86), 6.8 kg (SE 0.66) using LOCF (N = 561), 6.4 kg (SE 0.90) using MI (N = 561) and 1.5 kg (SE 0.28) using BOCF (N = 561).ConclusionsThe different imputation methods gave very different results. Contrary to widely stated claims, LOCF did not produce a conservative (i.e., lower) efficacy estimate compared to MI. Also, LOCF had a lower SE than MI

Power estimations for non-primary outcomes in randomised clinical trials

Objective and methods: It is rare that trialists report power estimations of non-primary outcomes. In the present article, we will describe how to define a valid hierarchy of outcomes in a randomised clinical trial, to limit problems with Type I and Type II errors, using considerations on the clinical relevance of the outcomes and power estimations. Conclusion: Power estimations of non-primary outcomes may guide trialists in classifying non-primary outcomes as secondary or exploratory. The power estimations are simple and if they are used systematically, more appropriate outcome hierarchies can be defined, and trial results will become more interpretable

Heat pain detection threshold is associated with the area of secondary hyperalgesia following brief thermal sensitization:a study of healthy male volunteers

INTRODUCTION: The area of secondary hyperalgesia following brief thermal sensitization (BTS) of the skin and heat pain detection thresholds (HPDT) may both have predictive abilities in regards to pain sensitivity and clinical pain states. The association between HPDT and secondary hyperalgesia, however, remains unsettled, and the dissimilarities in physiologic properties suggest that they may represent 2 distinctively different pain entities. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between HPDT and BTS-induced secondary hyperalgesia. METHODS: A sample of 121 healthy male participants was included and tested on 2 separate study days with BTS (45°C, 3 minutes), HPDT, and pain during thermal stimulation (45°C, 1 minute). Areas of secondary hyperalgesia were quantified after monofilament pinprick stimulation. The pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) were also applied. RESULTS: A significant association between HPDT and the size of the area of secondary hyperalgesia (p<0.0001) was found. The expected change in area of secondary hyperalgesia due to a 1-degree increase in HPDT was estimated to be −27.38 cm(2), 95% confidence interval (CI) of −37.77 to −16.98 cm(2), with an R(2) of 0.19. Likewise, a significant association between HADS-depression subscore and area of secondary hyperalgesia (p=0.046) was found, with an estimated expected change in secondary hyperalgesia to a 1-point increase in HADS-depression subscore of 11 cm(2), 95% CI (0.19–21.82), and with R(2) of 0.03. We found no significant associations between secondary hyperalgesia area and PCS score or pain during thermal stimulation. CONCLUSION: HPDT and the area of secondary hyperalgesia after BTS are significantly associated; however, with an R(2) of only 19%, HPDT only offers a modest explanation of the inter-participant variation in the size of the secondary hyperalgesia area elicited by BTS

Pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK solution during cardiac surgery for postoperative pulmonary function in COPD patients: a trial protocol for the randomized, clinical, parallel group, assessor and data analyst blinded Pulmonary Protection Trial

BACKGROUND: Five to thirty percent of patients undergoing cardiac surgery present with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and have a 2- to 10-fold higher 30-day mortality risk. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) creates a whole body systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) that could impair pulmonary function. Impaired pulmonary function can, however, be attenuated by pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) solution. METHODS/DESIGN: The Pulmonary Protection Trial (PP-Trial) randomizes 90 patients undergoing CPB-dependent cardiac surgery to evaluate whether pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK solution reduces postoperative pulmonary dysfunction in COPD patients. Further, we aim for a non-randomized evaluation of postoperative pulmonary function after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI). The primary outcome measure is the oxygenation index measured from anesthesia induction to the end of surgery and until 24 hours after anesthesia induction for a total of six evaluations. DISCUSSION: Patients with COPD may be impaired by hypoxemia and SIRS. Thus, prolonged recovery and even postoperative complications and death may be reflected by the degree of hypoxemia and SIRS. The limited sample size does not aim for confirmatory conclusions on mortality, cardiovascular complications or risk of pneumonia and sepsis, but the PP-Trial is considered an important feasibility trial paving the road for a multicenter confirmatory trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01614951

Sequential change detection and monitoring of temporal trends in random-effects meta-analysis

Temporal changes in magnitude of effect sizes reported in many areas of research are a threat to the credibility of the results and conclusions of meta-analysis. Numerous sequential methods for meta-analysis have been proposed to detect changes and monitor trends in effect sizes so that meta-analysis can be updated when necessary and interpreted based on the time it was conducted. The difficulties of sequential meta-analysis under the random-effects model are caused by dependencies in increments introduced by the estimation of the heterogeneity parameter τ2. In this paper we propose the use of a retrospective CUSUM-type test with bootstrap critical values. This method allows retrospective analysis of the past trajectory of cumulative effects in random-effects meta-analysis, and its visualisation on a chart similar to CUSUM chart. Simulation results show that the new method demonstrates good control of Type I error regardless of the number or size of the studies and the amount of heterogeneity. Application of the new method is illustrated on two examples of medical meta-analyses

The effects of centralised and specialised combined pharmacological and psychological intervention compared with decentralised and non-specialised treatment in the early course of severe unipolar and bipolar affective disorders - design of two randomised clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In unipolar, and bipolar affective disorders, there is a high risk of relapse that increases as the number of episodes increases. Naturalistic follow-up studies suggest that the progressive development of the diseases is not prevented with the present treatment modalities. It is not known whether centralised and specialised secondary care intervention initiated early after the onset of the diseases can prevent the progression and thereby improve the prognosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two randomised clinical multi-centre trials comparing a centralised and specialised outpatient intervention program consisting of combined pharmacological and psychological intervention with standard decentralised psychiatric treatment. Patients discharged from their first, second, or third hospitalisation due to a manic episode or bipolar disorder (trial 1) or to a single depressive episode or recurrent depressive disorder (trial 2) were randomised. Central randomisations for both trials were stratified for the number of hospitalisations and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure for the two trials is time to re-hospitalisation with an affective episode.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>These trials are the first to evaluate the effect of a centralised and specialised intervention in patients with early severe affective disorders. The trials used a pragmatic design comparing a specialised mood disorder clinic intervention with decentralised, non-specialised standard psychiatric treatment.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00253071">NCT00253071</a></p

Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis:a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques. Methods: Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Results: We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Conclusions: This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality, < 30 days mortality, < 30 days stroke, or any other serious adverse events. These conclusions are based on data from 15 to 35 years ago, obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE, and should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, we suggest conducting new randomized clinical trials patch angioplasty versus primary closure in carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with an internal carotid artery stenosis of 50% or more. Such trials ought to be designed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement (Chan et al., Ann Intern Med 1:200–7, 2013) and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (Schulz et al., 7, 2010). Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to guidelines should not be abandoned. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42014013416. Review protocol publication 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026419