Optimal Tests of Treatment Effects for the Overall Population and Two Subpopulations in Randomized Trials, using Sparse Linear Programming

We propose new, optimal methods for analyzing randomized trials, when it is suspected that treatment effects may differ in two predefined subpopulations. Such sub-populations could be defined by a biomarker or risk factor measured at baseline. The goal is to simultaneously learn which subpopulations benefit from an experimental treatment, while providing strong control of the familywise Type I error rate. We formalize this as a multiple testing problem and show it is computationally infeasible to solve using existing techniques. Our solution involves a novel approach, in which we first transform the original multiple testing problem into a large, sparse linear program. We then solve this problem using advanced optimization techniques. This general method can solve a variety of multiple testing problems and decision theory problems related to optimal trial design, for which no solution was previously available. In particular, we construct new multiple testing procedures that satisfy minimax and Bayes optimality criteria. For a given optimality criterion, our new approach yields the optimal tradeoff? between power to detect an effect in the overall population versus power to detect effects in subpopulations. We demonstrate our approach in examples motivated by two randomized trials of new treatments for HIV

Deep brain and cortical stimulation for epilepsy

Background : Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. In the last decades, interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). Objectives : To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of deep brain and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials. Search methods : We searched PubMed (6 August 2013), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (31 August 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7 of 12) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed. Selection criteria : Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation to sham stimulation, resective surgery or further treatment with antiepileptic drugs. Data collection and analysis : Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity. Main results : Ten RCTs comparing one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation to sham stimulation were identified. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in 4 cross-over trials without any washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after 1 to 3 months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi) focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi) focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (-17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -32.1 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (-24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to 6.0; high-quality evidence)) and hippocampal DBS (-28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 3% to 4% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 5% to 13% had soft tissue infections; no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation was well tolerated with few side effects but SUDEP rate should be closely monitored in the future (4 per 340 [= 11.8 per 1000] patient-years; literature: 2.2-10 per 1000 patient-years). The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality. Authors' conclusions : Only short term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi) focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi) focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. SUDEP rates require careful monitoring in patients undergoing responsive ictal onset zone stimulation. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments

Transfer of manualized CBT for social phobia into clinical practice (SOPHO-PRAX) : a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is generally known to be efficacious in the treatment of social phobia when applied in RCT's, namely when the treatment manual is based on the Clark-Wells approach. However, little is known about the efficacy of manualized treatments in routine clinical practice (Phase IV of psychotherapy research). The present study (SOPHO-PRAX) is a continuation of a large multi-centre randomized clinical trial (SOPHO-NET) and analyses the extent to which additional training practitioners in manualized procedures enhances treatment effect. Methods: N = 36 private practitioners will be included in three treatment centres and randomly designated to either training in manualized CBT or no specific training. The treatment effects of the therapies conducted by both groups of therapists will be compared. A total of 162 patients (N = 116 completers; N = 58 per condition) will be enrolled. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) will serve as primary outcome measure. Remission from social phobia is defined as LSAS total [less than or equal to] 30 points. Data will be collected at treatment begin, after 8, 15, and 25 sessions (50 mins. each), at treatment completion, as well at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Discussion: The present CBT trial combines elements of randomized-controlled trials and naturalistic studies in an innovative way. It will directly inform about the incremental effects of procedures established in a controlled trial into clinical practice. Study results are relevant to health care decisions and policy. They may serve to improve quality of treatment, and shorten the timeframe between the development and widespread dissemination of effective methods, thereby reducing health cost expenditures. The results of this study will not only inform about the degree to which the new methods lead to an improvement of treatment course and outcome, but also about whether the effects of routine psychotherapeutic treatment are comparable to those of the controlled, strictly manualized treatments of the SOPHO-NET study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01388231. This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (SOPHO-NET: BMBF 01GV0607; SOPHO-PRAX: BMBF 01GV1001)

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions (Review)

Background Decision aids prepare people to participate in ’close call’ decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty. Objectives To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients’ decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study’s intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model. Main results This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice. In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5). As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable. As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive. There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner. Authors’ conclusions Patient decision aids increase people’s involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.</p

Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE DATA: Timing of artificial rupture of membranes (ie, amniotomy) in induction of labor is controversial, because it has been associated not only with shorter labors, but also with fetal nonreassuring testing, at times necessitating cesarean delivery. The aim of this systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized trials was to evaluate the effectiveness of early amniotomy vs late amniotomy or spontaneous rupture of membranes after cervical ripening. STUDY: The search was conducted with the use of electronic databases from inception of each database through February 2019. Review of articles included the abstracts of all references that were retrieved from the search. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Selection criteria included randomized clinical trials that compared early amniotomy vs control (ie, late amniotomy or spontaneous rupture of membranes) after cervical ripening with either Foley catheter or prostaglandins at any dose. The primary outcome was the incidence of cesarean delivery. The summary measures were reported as summary relative risk with 95% of confidence interval with the use of the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Four trials that included 1273 women who underwent cervical ripening with either Foley catheter or prostaglandins and then were assigned randomly to either early amniotomy, late amniotomy, or spontaneous rupture of membranes (control subjects) were included in the review. Women who were assigned randomly to early amniotomy had a similar risk of cesarean delivery (31.1% vs 30.9%; relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.56) compared with control subjects and had a shorter interval from induction to delivery of approximately 5 hours (mean difference, -4.95 hours; 95% confidence interval, -8.12 to -1.78). Spontaneous vaginal delivery was also reduced in the early amniotomy group, but only 1 of the included trials reported this outcome (67.5% vs 69.1%; relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.93). No between-group differences were reported in the other obstetrics or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: After cervical ripening, routine early amniotomy does not increase the risk of cesarean delivery and reduces the interval from induction to delivery

Beyond A/B Testing: Sequential Randomization for Developing Interventions in Scaled Digital Learning Environments

Randomized experiments ensure robust causal inference that are critical to effective learning analytics research and practice. However, traditional randomized experiments, like A/B tests, are limiting in large scale digital learning environments. While traditional experiments can accurately compare two treatment options, they are less able to inform how to adapt interventions to continually meet learners' diverse needs. In this work, we introduce a trial design for developing adaptive interventions in scaled digital learning environments -- the sequential randomized trial (SRT). With the goal of improving learner experience and developing interventions that benefit all learners at all times, SRTs inform how to sequence, time, and personalize interventions. In this paper, we provide an overview of SRTs, and we illustrate the advantages they hold compared to traditional experiments. We describe a novel SRT run in a large scale data science MOOC. The trial results contextualize how learner engagement can be addressed through inclusive culturally targeted reminder emails. We also provide practical advice for researchers who aim to run their own SRTs to develop adaptive interventions in scaled digital learning environments

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice : systematic review and economic evaluation

Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Rush to Judgment: The STI-Treatment Trials and HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction: The extraordinarily high incidence of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa led to the search for cofactor infections that could explain the high rates of transmission in the region. Genital inflammation and lesions caused by sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were a probable mechanism, and numerous observational studies indicated several STI cofactors. Nine out of the ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, failed to demonstrate that treating STIs could lower HIV incidence. We evaluate all 10 trials to determine if their design permits the conclusion, widely believed, that STI treatment is ineffective in reducing HIV incidence. Discussion: Examination of the trials reveals critical methodological problems sufficient to account for statistically insignificant outcomes in nine of the ten trials. Shortcomings of the trials include weak exposure contrast, confounding, non-differential misclassification, contamination and effect modification, all of which consistently bias the results toward the null. In any future STI-HIV trial, ethical considerations will again require weak exposure contrast. The complexity posed by HIV transmission in the genital microbial environment means that any future STI-HIV trial will face confounding, non-differential misclassification and effect modification. As a result, it is unlikely that additional trials would be able to answer the question of whether STI control reduces HIV incidence. Conclusions: Shortcomings in published RCTs render invalid the conclusion that treating STIs and other cofactor infections is ineffective in HIV prevention. Meta-analyses of observational studies conclude that STIs can raise HIV transmission efficiency two- to fourfold. Health policy is always implemented under uncertainty. Given the known benefits of STI control, the irreparable harm from not treating STIs and the likely decline in HIV incidence resulting from STI control, it is appropriate to expand STI control programmes and to use funds earmarked for HIV prevention to finance those programmes