Should data monitoring committees assess efficacy when considering safety in trails in acute stroke?

The primary role of a trials Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) is to ensure the safety of enrolled patients. In stroke trials, safety is monitored typically by comparing death and stroke specific events between treatment groups. DMCs may also have the remit for monitoring efficacy depending on the aims of the trial. We hypothesised that functional outcome at end of follow-up, a measure of efficacy, is also a powerful measure of safety and tested this in a systematic review

Stroke severity, early recovery and outcome are each related with clinical classification of stroke: data from the 'Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TAIST)

Introduction: Baseline severity and clinical stroke syndrome (Oxford Community Stroke Project, OCSP) classification are predictors of outcome in stroke. We used data from the ‘Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial’ (TAIST) to assess the relationship between stroke severity, early recovery, outcome and OCSP syndrome. Methods: TAIST was a randomised controlled trial assessing the safety and efficacy of tinzaparin versus aspirin in 1,484 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Severity was measured as the Scandinavian Neurological Stroke Scale (SNSS) at baseline and days 4, 7 and 10, and baseline OCSP clinical classification recorded: total anterior circulation infarct (TACI), partial anterior circulation infarct (PACI), lacunar infarct (LACI) and posterior circulation infarction (POCI). Recovery was calculated as change in SNSS from baseline at day 4 and 10. The relationship between stroke syndrome and SNSS at days 4 and 10, and outcome (modified Rankin scale at 90 days) were assessed. Results: Stroke severity was significantly different between TACI (most severe) and LACI (mildest) at all four time points (p<0.001), with no difference between PACI and POCI. The largest change in SNSS score occurred between baseline and day 4; improvement was least in TACI (median 2 units), compared to other groups (median 3 units) (p<0.001). If SNSS did not improve by day 4, then early recovery and late functional outcome tended to be limited irrespective of clinical syndrome (SNSS, baseline: 31, day 10: 32; mRS, day 90: 4); patients who recovered early tended to continue to improve and had better functional outcome irrespective of syndrome (SNSS, baseline: 35, day 10: 50; mRS, day 90: 2). Conclusions: Although functional outcome is related to baseline clinical syndrome (best with LACI, worst with TACI), patients who improve early have a more favourable functional outcome, irrespective of their OCSP syndrome. Hence, patients with a TACI syndrome may still achieve a reasonable outcome if early recovery occurs.

Bayesian analysis of a mastitis control plan to investigate the influence of veterinary prior beliefs on clinical interpretation

The fundamental objective for health research is to determine whether changes should be made to clinical decisions. Decisions made by veterinary surgeons in the light of new research evidence are known to be influenced by their prior beliefs, especially their initial opinions about the plausibility of possible results. In this paper, clinical trial results for a bovine mastitis control plan were evaluated within a Bayesian context, to incorporate a community of prior distributions that represented a spectrum of clinical prior beliefs. The aim was to quantify the effect of veterinary surgeons’ initial viewpoints on the interpretation of the trial results. A Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures. Stochastic models included a financial cost attributed to a change in clinical mastitis following implementation of the control plan. Prior distributions were incorporated that covered a realistic range of possible clinical viewpoints, including scepticism, enthusiasm and uncertainty. Posterior distributions revealed important differences in the financial gain that clinicians with different starting viewpoints would anticipate from the mastitis control plan, given the actual research results. For example, a severe sceptic would ascribe a probability of 0.50 for a return of <£5 per cow in an average herd that implemented the plan, whereas an enthusiast would ascribe this probability for a return of >£20 per cow. Simulations using increased trial sizes indicated that if the original study was four times as large, an initial sceptic would be more convinced about the efficacy of the control plan but would still anticipate less financial return than an initial enthusiast would anticipate after the original study. In conclusion, it is possible to estimate how clinicians’ prior beliefs influence their interpretation of research evidence. Further research on the extent to which different interpretations of evidence result in changes to clinical practice would be worthwhile.