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.

Myth creation in textbook writing : the case of randomised controlled trials in medical research

Textbooks, across all disciplines, are prone to contain errors; grammatical, editorial, factual, or judgemental. The following is an account of one of the possible effects of such errors; how an error becomes entrenched and even exaggerated as later textbooks fail to correct the original error. The example considered here concerns the origins of one of the most basic and important tools of to­ day's medical research, the randomised controlled trial. It is the result of a systematic study of 26 British, French and German history of medicine textbooks since 1996.

Effect of fibroblast growth factor NV1FGF on amputation and death: a randomised placebo-controlled trial of gene therapy in critical limb ischaemia

Patients with critical limb ischaemia have a high rate of amputation and mortality. We tested the hypothesis that non-viral 1 fibroblast growth factor (NV1FGF) would improve amputation-free survival.

Treatment of optic neuritis with erythropoietin (TONE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION Optic neuritis leads to degeneration of retinal ganglion cells whose axons form the optic nerve. The standard treatment is a methylprednisolone pulse therapy. This treatment slightly shortens the time of recovery but does not prevent neurodegeneration and persistent visual impairment. In a phase II trial performed in preparation of this study, we have shown that erythropoietin protects global retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (RNFLT-G) in acute optic neuritis; however, the preparatory trial was not powered to show effects on visual function. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Treatment of Optic Neuritis with Erythropoietin (TONE) is a national, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial with two parallel arms. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of erythropoietin compared to placebo given add-on to methylprednisolone as assessed by measurements of RNFLT-G and low-contrast visual acuity in the affected eye 6 months after randomisation. Inclusion criteria are a first episode of optic neuritis with decreased visual acuity to ≤0.5 (decimal system) and an onset of symptoms within 10 days prior to inclusion. The most important exclusion criteria are history of optic neuritis or multiple sclerosis or any ocular disease (affected or non-affected eye), significant hyperopia, myopia or astigmatism, elevated blood pressure, thrombotic events or malignancy. After randomisation, patients either receive 33 000 international units human recombinant erythropoietin intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo (0.9% saline) administered intravenously. With an estimated power of 80%, the calculated sample size is 100 patients. The trial started in September 2014 with a planned recruitment period of 30 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION TONE has been approved by the Central Ethics Commission in Freiburg (194/14) and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (61-3910-4039831). It complies with the Declaration of Helsinki, local laws and ICH-GCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01962571.

Early non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in hemodynamically unstable intensive care patients: A multi-center randomized controlled trial

Introduction Acute hemodynamic instability increases morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether early non-invasive cardiac output monitoring enhances hemodynamic stabilization and improves outcome. Methods A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted in three European university hospital intensive care units in 2006 and 2007. A total of 388 hemodynamically unstable patients identified during their first six hours in the intensive care unit (ICU) were randomized to receive either non-invasive cardiac output monitoring for 24 hrs (minimally invasive cardiac output/MICO group; n = 201) or usual care (control group; n = 187). The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients achieving hemodynamic stability within six hours of starting the study. Results The number of hemodynamic instability criteria at baseline (MICO group mean 2.0 (SD 1.0), control group 1.8 (1.0); P = .06) and severity of illness (SAPS II score; MICO group 48 (18), control group 48 (15); P = .86)) were similar. At 6 hrs, 45 patients (22%) in the MICO group and 52 patients (28%) in the control group were hemodynamically stable (mean difference 5%; 95% confidence interval of the difference -3 to 14%; P = .24). Hemodynamic support with fluids and vasoactive drugs, and pulmonary artery catheter use (MICO group: 19%, control group: 26%; P = .11) were similar in the two groups. The median length of ICU stay was 2.0 (interquartile range 1.2 to 4.6) days in the MICO group and 2.5 (1.1 to 5.0) days in the control group (P = .38). The hospital mortality was 26% in the MICO group and 21% in the control group (P = .34). Conclusions Minimally-invasive cardiac output monitoring added to usual care does not facilitate early hemodynamic stabilization in the ICU, nor does it alter the hemodynamic support or outcome. Our results emphasize the need to evaluate technologies used to measure stroke volume and cardiac output--especially their impact on the process of care--before any large-scale outcome studies are attempted.

Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a randomised controlled clinical trial

To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation

To evaluate the effectiveness of register based, yearly chlamydia screening.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Prevention of preterm delivery with vaginal progesterone in women with preterm labour (4P): randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of 200 mg of daily vaginal natural progesterone to prevent preterm birth in women with preterm labour. DESIGN Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING Twenty-nine centres in Switzerland and Argentina. POPULATION A total of 385 women with preterm labour (24(0/7) to 33(6/7) weeks of gestation) treated with acute tocolysis. METHODS Participants were randomly allocated to either 200 mg daily of self-administered vaginal progesterone or placebo within 48 hours of starting acute tocolysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was delivery before 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were delivery before 32 and 34 weeks, adverse effects, duration of tocolysis, re-admissions for preterm labour, length of hospital stay, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The study was ended prematurely based on results of the intermediate analysis. RESULTS Preterm birth occurred in 42.5% of women in the progesterone group versus 35.5% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-1.5). Delivery at <32 and <34 weeks did not differ between the two groups (12.9 versus 9.7%; [RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.7-2.5] and 19.7 versus 12.9% [RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.4], respectively). The duration of tocolysis, hospitalisation, and recurrence of preterm labour were comparable between groups. Neonatal morbidity occurred in 44 (22.8%) cases on progesterone versus 35 (18.8%) cases on placebo (RR: 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.8), whereas there were 4 (2%) neonatal deaths in each study group. CONCLUSION There is no evidence that the daily administration of 200 mg vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth or improves neonatal outcome in women with preterm labour.

Non-surgical treatment of pain associated with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND Symptoms associated with pes planovalgus or flatfeet occur frequently, even though some people with a flatfoot deformity remain asymptomatic. Pes planovalgus is proposed to be associated with foot/ankle pain and poor function. Concurrently, the multifactorial weakness of the tibialis posterior muscle and its tendon can lead to a flattening of the longitudinal arch of the foot. Those affected can experience functional impairment and pain. Less severe cases at an early stage are eligible for non-surgical treatment and foot orthoses are considered to be the first line approach. Furthermore, strengthening of arch and ankle stabilising muscles are thought to contribute to active compensation of the deformity leading to stress relief of soft tissue structures. There is only limited evidence concerning the numerous therapy approaches, and so far, no data are available showing functional benefits that accompany these interventions. METHODS After clinical diagnosis and clarification of inclusion criteria (e.g., age 40-70, current complaint of foot and ankle pain more than three months, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction stage I & II, longitudinal arch flattening verified by radiography), sixty participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction associated complaints will be included in the study and will be randomly assigned to one of three different intervention groups: (i) foot orthoses only (FOO), (ii) foot orthoses and eccentric exercise (FOE), or (iii) sham foot orthoses only (FOS). Participants in the FOO and FOE groups will be allocated individualised foot orthoses, the latter combined with eccentric exercise for ankle stabilisation and strengthening of the tibialis posterior muscle. Participants in the FOS group will be allocated sham foot orthoses only. During the intervention period of 12 weeks, all participants will be encouraged to follow an educational program for dosed foot load management (e.g., to stop activity if they experience increasing pain). Functional impairment will be evaluated pre- and post-intervention by the Foot Function Index. Further outcome measures include the Pain Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, SF-12, kinematic data from 3D-movement analysis and neuromuscular activity during level and downstairs walking. Measuring outcomes pre- and post-intervention will allow the calculation of intervention effects by 3×3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. DISCUSSION The purpose of this randomised trial is to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of three different non-surgical treatment regimens in participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and accompanying pes planovalgus. Furthermore, the analysis of changes in gait mechanics and neuromuscular control will contribute to an enhanced understanding of functional changes and eventually optimise conservative management strategies for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01839669.

Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Clinical trials yielded conflicting data about the benefit of adding systemic corticosteroids for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. We assessed whether short-term corticosteroid treatment reduces time to clinical stability in patients admitted to hospital for community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with community-acquired pneumonia from seven tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland within 24 h of presentation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either prednisone 50 mg daily for 7 days or placebo. The computer-generated randomisation was done with variable block sizes of four to six and stratified by study centre. The primary endpoint was time to clinical stability defined as time (days) until stable vital signs for at least 24 h, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973154. FINDINGS From Dec 1, 2009, to May 21, 2014, of 2911 patients assessed for eligibility, 785 patients were randomly assigned to either the prednisone group (n=392) or the placebo group (n=393). Median time to clinical stability was shorter in the prednisone group (3·0 days, IQR 2·5-3·4) than in the placebo group (4·4 days, 4·0-5·0; hazard ratio [HR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·15-1·50, p<0·0001). Pneumonia-associated complications until day 30 did not differ between groups (11 [3%] in the prednisone group and 22 [6%] in the placebo group; odds ratio [OR] 0·49 [95% CI 0·23-1·02]; p=0·056). The prednisone group had a higher incidence of in-hospital hyperglycaemia needing insulin treatment (76 [19%] vs 43 [11%]; OR 1·96, 95% CI 1·31-2·93, p=0·0010). Other adverse events compatible with corticosteroid use were rare and similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION Prednisone treatment for 7 days in patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to hospital shortens time to clinical stability without an increase in complications. This finding is relevant from a patient perspective and an important determinant of hospital costs and efficiency. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation, Viollier AG, Nora van Meeuwen Haefliger Stiftung, Julia und Gottfried Bangerter-Rhyner Stiftung.

Tocilizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in giant cell arteritis: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Giant cell arteritis is an immune-mediated disease of medium and large-sized arteries that affects mostly people older than 50 years of age. Treatment with glucocorticoids is the gold-standard and prevents severe vascular complications but is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Tocilizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has been associated with rapid induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. We therefore aimed to study the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the first randomised clinical trial in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent giant cell arteritis. METHODS In this single centre, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 50 years and older from University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, who met the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for giant cell arteritis. Patients with new-onset or relapsing disease were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo intravenously. 13 infusions were given in 4 week intervals until week 52. Both groups received oral prednisolone, starting at 1 mg/kg per day and tapered down to 0 mg according to a standard reduction scheme defined in the study protocol. Allocation to treatment groups was done using a central computerised randomisation procedure with a permuted block design and a block size of three, and concealed using central randomisation generated by the clinical trials unit. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved complete remission of disease at a prednisolone dose of 0·1 mg/kg per day at week 12. All analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01450137. RESULTS Between March 3, 2012, and Sept 9, 2014, 20 patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab and prednisolone, and ten patients to receive placebo and glucocorticoid; 16 (80%) and seven (70%) patients, respectively, had new-onset giant cell arteritis. 17 (85%) of 20 patients given tocilizumab and four (40%) of ten patients given placebo reached complete remission by week 12 (risk difference 45%, 95% CI 11-79; p=0·0301). Relapse-free survival was achieved in 17 (85%) patients in the tocilizumab group and two (20%) in the placebo group by week 52 (risk difference 65%, 95% CI 36-94; p=0·0010). The mean survival-time difference to stop glucocorticoids was 12 weeks in favour of tocilizumab (95% CI 7-17; p<0·0001), leading to a cumulative prednisolone dose of 43 mg/kg in the tocilizumab group versus 110 mg/kg in the placebo group (p=0·0005) after 52 weeks. Seven (35%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (50%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Our findings show, for the first time in a trial setting, the efficacy of tocilizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. FUNDING Roche and the University of Bern.

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.