Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Influence of socioeconomic factors on delays, management and outcome amongst patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

The outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is strongly affected by time delays. In this study, we sought to identify the impact of specific socioeconomic factors on time delays, subsequent STEMI management and outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI, who came from a well-defined region of the French part of Switzerland. A total of 402 consecutive patients undergoing pPCI for STEMI in a large tertiary hospital were retrospectively studied. Symptom-to-first-medical-contact time was analysed for the following socioeconomic factors: level of education, origin and marital status. Main exclusion criteria were: time delay beyond 12 hours, previous treatment with fibrinolytic agents or patients immediately referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Therefore, 222 patients were finally included. At 1 year, there was no difference in mortality between the different socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, there was no difference in management characteristics between them. Symptom-to-first-medical-contact time was significantly longer for patients with a low level of education, Swiss citizens and unmarried patients, with median differences of 23 minutes, 18 minutes and 13 minutes, respectively (p <0.05). Nevertheless, no difference was found regarding in-hospital management and clinical outcome. This study demonstrates that symptom-to-first-medical-contact time is longer amongst people with a lower educational level, Swiss citizens and unmarried people. Because of the low mortality rate in general, these differences in delays did not affect clinical outcomes. Still, tertiary prevention measures should particularly focus on these vulnerable populations.