Study methodology in trauma care: towards question-based study designs

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) in surgery may not always be ethical, feasible, or necessary to address a particular research question about the effect of a surgical intervention. If so, properly designed and conducted observational (non-randomized) studies may be valuable alternatives for an RCT and produce credible results. In this paper, we discus differences between RCTs and observational studies and differentiate between three types of comparisons of surgical interventions. We assert that results of different designs should be regarded as complementary to each other when evaluating surgical interventions. Criteria for credible observational research are presented to provide guidance for future observational research of surgical interventions. We argue that the research question that is being asked should guide the discussion about the value of a particular study design

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Early Levodopa in Parkinson's Disease

Background: In the Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease (LEAP) study, 445 patients were randomized to levodopa/carbidopa 100/25 mg three times per day for 80 weeks (early-start) or placebo for 40 weeks followed by levodopa/carbidopa 100/25 mg three times per day for 40 weeks (delayed-start).Objective: This paper reports the results of the economic evaluation performed alongside the LEAP-study.Methods: Early-start treatment was evaluated versus delayed-start treatment, in which the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and the cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from the societal perspective, including health care costs among providers, non-reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses of patients, employer costs of sick leave, and lowered productivity while at work. The outcome measure for the CEA was the extra cost per unit decrease on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale 80 weeks after baseline. The outcome measure for the CUA was the extra costs per additional quality adjusted life year (QALY) during follow-up.Results: 212 patients in the early-start and 219 patients in the delayed-start group reported use of health care resources. With savings of D 59 per patient (BCa 95% CI: -829, 788) in the early-start compared to the delayed-start group, societal costs were balanced. The early-start group showed a mean of 1.30 QALYs (BCa 95% CI: 1.26, 1.33) versus 1.30 QALYs (BCa 95% CI: 1.27, 1.33) for the delayed-start group. Because of this negligible difference, incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were not calculated.Conclusion: From an economic point of view, this study suggests that early treatment with levodopa is not more expensive than delayed treatment with levodopa.Neurological Motor Disorder

Surveillance of high-risk early postsurgical patients for real-time detection of complications using wireless monitoring (SHEPHERD study):results of a randomized multicenter stepped wedge cluster trial

Background: Vital signs measurements on the ward are performed intermittently. This could lead to failure to rapidly detect patients with deteriorating vital signs and worsens long-term outcome. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that continuous wireless monitoring of vital signs on the postsurgical ward improves patient outcome. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, patients in the control group received standard monitoring. The intervention group received continuous wireless monitoring of heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature on top of standard care. Automated alerts indicating vital signs deviation from baseline were sent to ward nurses, triggering the calculation of a full early warning score followed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of new disability three months after surgery. Results: The study was terminated early (at 57% inclusion) due to COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are presented. A total of 747 patients were enrolled in this study and eligible for statistical analyses, 517 patients in the control group and 230 patients in the intervention group, the latter only from one hospital. New disability at three months after surgery occurred in 43.7% in the control group and in 39.1% in the intervention group (absolute difference 4.6%). Conclusion: This is the largest randomized controlled trial investigating continuous wireless monitoring in postoperative patients. While patients in the intervention group seemed to experience less (new) disability than patients in the control group, results remain inconclusive with regard to postoperative patient outcome due to premature study termination. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02957825.</p

Disease burden in primary sclerosing cholangitis in the Netherlands: A long-term follow-up study

Background & Aims: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive, cholestatic liver disease which greatly impacts the lives of individuals. Burden of disease due to shortened life expectancy and impaired quality of life is ill-described. The aim of this study was to assess long-term disease burden in a large population-based registry with regard to survival, clinical course, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), medical consumption and work productivity loss. Methods: All PSC patients living in a geographically defined area covering ~50% of the Netherlands were included, together with patients from the three liver transplant centres. Survival was estimated by competing risk analysis. Proportional shortfall of QALYs during disease course was measured relative to a matched reference cohort using validated questionnaires. Work productivity loss and medical consumption were evaluated over time. Results: A total of 1208 patients were included with a median follow-up of 11.2 year. Median liver transplant-free survival was 21.0 years. Proportional shortfall of QALYs increased to 48% >25 years after diagnosis. Patients had on average 12.4 hospital contact days among which 3.17 admission days per year, annual medical costs were €12 169 and mean work productivity loss was 25%. Conclusions: Our data quantify for the first time disease burden in terms of QALYs lost, clinical events, medical consumption, costs as well as work productivity loss, and show that all these are substantial and increase over time

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p