Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

A randomized controlled trial protocol testing a decision support intervention for older patients with advanced kidney disease

Aim To assess the effectiveness of a decision support intervention using a pragmatic single blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Background Worldwide the proportion of older people (aged 65 years and over) is rising. This population is known to have a higher prevalence of chronic diseases including chronic kidney disease. The resultant effect of the changing health landscape is seen in the increase in older patients (aged ≥65 years) commencing on dialysis. Emerging evidence suggests that for some older patients dialysis may provide minimal benefit. In a majority of renal units non-dialysis management is offered as an alternative to undertaking dialysis. Research regarding decision-making support that is required to assist this population in choosing between dialysis or non-dialysis management is limited. Design. A multisite single blinded pragmatic randomized controlled trial is proposed. Methods Patients will be recruited from four Queensland public hospitals and randomizd into either the control or intervention group. The decision support intervention is multimodal and includes counselling provided by a trained nurse. The comparator is standard decision-making support. The primary outcomes are decisional regret and decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are improved knowledge and quality of life. Ethics approval obtained November 2014. Conclusion This is one of the first randomized controlled trials assessing a decision support intervention in older people with advance chronic kidney disease. The results may provide guidance for clinicians in future approaches to assist this population in decision-making to ensure reduced decisional regret and decisional conflict.

Reducing the global burden of depression : population level analysis of intervention cost-effectiveness in 14 world regions

International evidence on the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of depression remain scarce. Aims: To estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based depression interventions and their contribution towards reducing current burden. Method: Primary-care-based depression interventions were modelled at the level of whole populations in 14 epidemiological subregions of the world. Total population-level costs (in international dollars or I$) and effectiveness (disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Evaluated interventions have the potential to reduce the current burden of depression by 10–30%. Pharmacotherapy with older antidepressant drugs, with or without proactive collaborative care, are currently more cost-effective strategies than those using newer antidepressants, particularly in lower-income subregions. Conclusions: Even in resource-poor regions, each DALYaverted by efficient depression treatments in primary care costs less than 1 year of average per capita income, making such interventions a cost-effective use of health resources. However, current levels of burden can only be reduced significantlyif there is a substantialincrease substantial increase intreatment coverage.

Creating a therapeutic environment : a non-randomised controlled trial of a quiet time intervention for patients in acute care

Background: Noise is a significant barrier to sleep for acute care hospital patients, and sleep has been shown to be therapeutic for health, healing and recovery. Scheduled quiet time interventions to promote inpatient rest and sleep have been successfully trialled in critical care but not in acute care settings. Objectives: The study aim was to evaluate as cheduled quiet time intervention in an acute care setting. The study measured the effect of a scheduled quiet time on noise levels, inpatients’ rest and sleep behaviour, and wellbeing. The study also examined the impact of the intervention on patients’, visitors’ and health professionals’ satisfaction, and organisational functioning. Design: The study was a multi-centred non-randomised parallel group trial. Settings: The research was conducted in the acute orthopaedic wards of two major urban public hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. Participants: All patientsadmitted to the two wards in the5-month period of the study were invited to participate, withafinalsample of 299 participants recruited. This sample produced an effect size of 0.89 for an increase in the number of patients asleep during the quiet time. Methods: Demographic data were collected to enable comparison between groups. Data for noise level, sleep status, sleepiness and well being were collected using previously validated instruments: a Castle Model 824 digital sound level indicator; a three point sleep status scale; the Epworth Sleepiness Scale; and the SF12 V2 questionnaire. The staff, patient and visitor surveys on the experimental ward were adapted from published instruments. Results: Significant differences were found between the two groups in mean decibel level and numbers of patients awake and asleep. The difference in mean measured noise levels between the two environments corresponded to a ‘perceived’ difference of 2 to 1. There were significant correlations between average decibel level and number of patients awake and asleep in the experimental group, and between average decibel level and number of patients awake in the control group. Overall, patients, visitors and health professionals were satisfied with the quiet time intervention. Conclusions: The findings show that a quiet time intervention on an acute care hospital ward can affect noise level and patient sleep/wake patterns during the intervention period. The overall strongly positive response from surveys suggests that scheduled quiet time would be a positively perceived intervention with therapeutic benefit.

A cluster-randomised intervention trial against Schistosoma japonicum in the Peoples' Republic of China: bovine and human transmission

Background Zoonotic schistosomiasis japonica is a major public health problem in China. Bovines, particularly water buffaloes, are thought to play a major role in the transmission of schistosomiasis to humans in China. Preliminary results (1998–2003) of a praziquantel (PZQ)-based pilot intervention study we undertook provided proof of principle that water buffaloes are major reservoir hosts for S. japonicum in the Poyang Lake region, Jiangxi Province. Methods and Findings Here we present the results of a cluster-randomised intervention trial (2004–2007) undertaken in Hunan and Jiangxi Provinces, with increased power and more general applicability to the lake and marshlands regions of southern China. The trial involved four matched pairs of villages with one village within each pair randomly selected as a control (human PZQ treatment only), leaving the other as the intervention (human and bovine PZQ treatment). A sentinel cohort of people to be monitored for new infections for the duration of the study was selected from each village. Results showed that combined human and bovine chemotherapy with PZQ had a greater effect on human incidence than human PZQ treatment alone. Conclusions The results from this study, supported by previous experimental evidence, confirms that bovines are the major reservoir host of human schistosomiasis in the lake and marshland regions of southern China, and reinforce the rationale for the development and deployment of a transmission blocking anti-S. japonicum vaccine targeting bovines.

Implementation of a driving diary intervention to reduce aberrant driving behaviours

Crash data involving taxis indicates that such drivers are over represented in crashes and are one to two times more likely to be involved in a fatality crash. This study reports on the pre intervention survey to provide a baseline measure of the self-reported attitudes and corresponding driving behaviours of a sample of taxi drivers. Results indicate that some taxi drivers willingly admit to engaging in unsafe driving practices. In addition, preliminary results of a post intervention survey revealed that taxi drivers’ safety perceptions, attitude and behaviours improved after completing a Driving Diary intervention.