Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Comparison of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting With Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Trials

OBJECTIVES This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. METHODS Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Of 43,904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11,557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis. INTERPRETATION The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women. FUNDING Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

The edge vascular response following implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the XIENCE V metallic everolimus-eluting stent. First serial follow-up assessment at six months and two years: insights from the first-in-man ABSORB Cohort B and SPIRIT II trials

AIMS To assess serially the edge vascular response (EVR) of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to a metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS Non-serial evaluations of the Absorb BVS at one year have previously demonstrated proximal edge constrictive remodelling and distal edge changes in plaque composition with increase of the percent fibro-fatty (FF) tissue component. The 5 mm proximal and distal segments adjacent to the implanted devices were investigated serially with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), post procedure, at six months and at two years, from the ABSORB Cohort B1 (n=45) and the SPIRIT II (n=113) trials. Twenty-two proximal and twenty-four distal edge segments were available for analysis in the ABSORB Cohort B1 trial. In the SPIRIT II trial, thirty-three proximal and forty-six distal edge segments were analysed. At the 5-mm proximal edge, the vessels treated with an Absorb BVS from post procedure to two years demonstrated a lumen loss (LL) of 6.68% (-17.33; 2.08) (p=0.027) with a trend toward plaque area increase of 7.55% (-4.68; 27.11) (p=0.06). At the 5-mm distal edge no major changes were evident at either time point. At the 5-mm proximal edge the vessels treated with a XIENCE V EES from post procedure to two years did not show any signs of LL, only plaque area decrease of 6.90% (-17.86; 4.23) (p=0.035). At the distal edge no major changes were evident with regard to either lumen area or vessel remodelling at the same time point. CONCLUSIONS The IVUS-based serial evaluation of the EVR up to two years following implantation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold shows a statistically significant proximal edge LL; however, this finding did not seem to have any clinical implications in the serial assessment. The upcoming imaging follow-up of the Absorb BVS at three years is anticipated to provide further information regarding the vessel wall behaviour at the edges.

Impact of overlapping newer generation drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes: pooled analysis of five trials from the international Global RESOLUTE Program

BACKGROUND Overlapping first generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents are associated with persistent inflammation, fibrin deposition and delayed endothelialisation in preclinical models, and adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes--including death and myocardial infarction (MI)--in clinical studies. OBJECTIVES To establish as to whether there are any safety concerns with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Propensity score adjustment of baseline anatomical and clinical characteristics were used to compare clinical outcomes (Kaplan-Meier estimates) between patients implanted with overlapping DES (Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) or R-ZES/other DES) against no overlapping DES. Additionally, angiographic outcomes for overlapping R-ZES and everolimus-eluting stents were evaluated in the randomised RESOLUTE All-Comers Trial. SETTING Patient level data from five controlled studies of the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program evaluating the R-ZES were pooled. Enrollment criteria were generally unrestrictive. PATIENTS 5130 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 2-year clinical outcomes and 13-month angiographic outcomes. RESULTS 644 of 5130 patients (12.6%) in the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program underwent overlapping DES implantation. Implantation of overlapping DES was associated with an increased frequency of MI and more complex/calcified lesion types at baseline. Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day and 2-year clinical outcomes indicated comparable cardiac death (2-year overlap vs non-overlap: 3.0% vs 2.1%, p=0.36), major adverse cardiac events (13.3% vs 10.7%, p=0.19), target-vessel MI (3.9% vs 3.4%, p=0.40), clinically driven target vessel revascularisation (7.7% vs 6.5%, p=0.32), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.28). 13-month adjusted angiographic outcomes were comparable between overlapping and non-overlapping DES. CONCLUSIONS Overlapping newer generation DES are safe and effective, with comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes--including repeat revascularisation--to non-overlapping DES.

Comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine schedules: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine trials

BACKGROUND The optimal schedule and the need for a booster dose are unclear for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines. We systematically reviewed relative effects of Hib vaccine schedules. METHODS We searched 21 databases to May 2010 or June 2012 and selected randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared different Hib schedules (3 primary doses with no booster dose [3p+0], 3p+1 and 2p+1) or different intervals in primary schedules and between primary and booster schedules. Outcomes were clinical efficacy, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological response. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty trials from 15 countries were included; 16 used vaccines conjugated to tetanus toxoid (polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid). No trials assessed clinical or carriage outcomes. Twenty trials examined immunological outcomes and found few relevant differences. Comparing polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid 3p+0 with 2p+0, there was no difference in seropositivity at the 1.0 μg/mL threshold by 6 months after the last primary dose (combined risk difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.06). Only small differences were seen between schedules starting at different ages, with different intervals between primary doses, or with different intervals between primary and booster doses. Individuals receiving a booster were more likely to be seropositive than those at the same age who did not. CONCLUSIONS There is no clear evidence from trials that any 2p+1, 3p+0 or 3p+1 schedule of Hib conjugate vaccine is likely to provide better protection against Hib disease than other schedules. Until more data become available, scheduling is likely to be determined by epidemiological and programmatic considerations in individual settings.

Adjudication-related processes are underreported and lack standardization in clinical trials of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Although the use of an adjudication committee (AC) for outcomes is recommended in randomized controlled trials, there are limited data on the process of adjudication. We therefore aimed to assess whether the reporting of the adjudication process in venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials meets existing quality standards and which characteristics of trials influence the use of an AC. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003, to June 1, 2012, for randomized controlled trials on VTE. We abstracted information about characteristics and quality of trials and reporting of adjudication processes. We used stepwise backward logistic regression model to identify trial characteristics independently associated with the use of an AC. RESULTS We included 161 trials. Of these, 68.9% (111 of 161) reported the use of an AC. Overall, 99.1% (110 of 111) of trials with an AC used independent or blinded ACs, 14.4% (16 of 111) reported how the adjudication decision was reached within the AC, and 4.5% (5 of 111) reported on whether the reliability of adjudication was assessed. In multivariate analyses, multicenter trials [odds ratio (OR), 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7, 27.8], use of a data safety-monitoring board (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 11.6), and VTE as the primary outcome (OR, 5.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 19.4) were associated with the use of an AC. Trials without random allocation concealment (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.8) and open-label trials (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0) were less likely to report an AC. CONCLUSION Recommended processes of adjudication are underreported and lack standardization in VTE-related clinical trials. The use of an AC varies substantially by trial characteristics.

Adjuvant treatment of premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: design of the TEXT and SOFT trials

OBJECTIVES In 2003 the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated the TEXT and SOFT randomized phase III trials to answer two questions concerning adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: 1-What is the role of aromatase inhibitors (AI) for women treated with ovarian function suppression (OFS)? 2-What is the role of OFS for women who remain premenopausal and are treated with tamoxifen? METHODS TEXT randomized patients to receive exemestane or tamoxifen with OFS. SOFT randomized patients to receive exemestane with OFS, tamoxifen with OFS, or tamoxifen alone. Treatment was for 5 years from randomization. RESULTS TEXT and SOFT successfully met their enrollment goals in 2011. The 5738 enrolled women had lower-risk disease and lower observed disease-free survival (DFS) event rates than anticipated. Consequently, 7 and 13 additional years of follow-up for TEXT and SOFT, respectively, were required to reach the targeted DFS events (median follow-up about 10.5 and 15 years). To provide timely answers, protocol amendments in 2011 specified analyses based on chronological time and median follow-up. To assess the AI question, exemestane + OFS versus tamoxifen + OFS, a combined analysis of TEXT and SOFT became the primary analysis (n = 4717). The OFS question became the primary analysis from SOFT, assessing the unique comparison of tamoxifen + OFS versus tamoxifen alone (n = 2045). The first reports are anticipated in mid- and late-2014. CONCLUSIONS We present the original designs of TEXT and SOFT and adaptations to ensure timely answers to two questions concerning optimal adjuvant endocrine treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Trial Registration TEXT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066703 SOFT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066690.

Initiation and continuation of randomized trials after the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit asking the same study question: STOPIT-3 study design

BACKGROUND Randomized control trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) are increasingly common and, on average, overestimate the relative magnitude of benefit by approximately 30%. Investigators stop trials early when they consider it is no longer ethical to enroll patients in a control group. The goal of this systematic review is to determine how investigators of ongoing or planned RCTs respond to the publication of a truncated RCT addressing a similar question. METHODS/DESIGN We will conduct systematic reviews to update the searches of 210 truncated RCTs to identify similar trials ongoing at the time of publication, or started subsequently, to the truncated trials ('subsequent RCTs'). Reviewers will determine in duplicate the similarity between the truncated and subsequent trials. We will analyze the epidemiology, distribution, and predictors of subsequent RCTs. We will also contact authors of subsequent trials to determine reasons for beginning, continuing, or prematurely discontinuing their own trials, and the extent to which they rely on the estimates from truncated trials. DISCUSSION To the extent that investigators begin or continue subsequent trials they implicitly disagree with the decision to stop the truncated RCT because of an ethical mandate to administer the experimental treatment. The results of this study will help guide future decisions about when to stop RCTs early for benefit.

Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in trials investigating endovascular repair of aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVES Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with aortic dissection (AD) and various studies have been published. These trials, however, are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. METHODS The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in AD therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in trials for endovascular therapy of various vascular pathologies. In this project, which started in December 2006, the individual team members reviewed the existing pertinent literature. Following this, a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings were held to agree upon definitions. Input was also obtained from regulatory (United States Food and Drug Administration) and industry (device manufacturers with an interest in peripheral endovascular revascularization) stakeholders, respectively. RESULTS These efforts resulted in the present document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions for clinical and morphological outcomes. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary consensus choices and compromises, adherence to these proposed standard definitions would provide consistency across future trials, thereby facilitating evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of various endovascular revascularization techniques. CONCLUSIONS This current document is based on a broad based consensus involving relevant stakeholders from the medical community, industry and regulatory bodies. It is proposed that the consensus document may have value for study design of future clinical trials in endovascular AD therapy as well as for regulatory purposes.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.

Predictors of adverse events among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a pooled analysis of the COMFORTABLE AMI and EXAMINATION trials

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of adverse events among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Individual data of 2,655 patients from two primary PCI trials (EXAMINATION, N=1,504; COMFORTABLE AMI, N=1,161) with identical endpoint definitions and event adjudication were pooled. Predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction and definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) outcomes at one year were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Killip class III or IV was the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction (OR 5.11, 95% CI: 2.48-10.52), definite ST (OR 7.74, 95% CI: 2.87-20.93), and TLR (OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.17-7.06). Impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 4.77, 95% CI: 2.10-10.82), final TIMI flow 0-2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.05-3.54), arterial hypertension (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), age (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41-2.01), and peak CK (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.54) were independent predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction. Allocation to treatment with DES was an independent predictor of a lower risk of definite ST (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74) and any TLR (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54). Conclusions: Killip class remains the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. DES use independently predicts a lower risk of TLR and definite ST compared with BMS. The COMFORTABLE AMI trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00962416. The EXAMINATION trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00828087.