Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: high noon for uniform reporting standards

In the era of evidence based medicine, proof of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness need to be firmly based on transparent comparisons between various therapeutic alternatives. Standards for reports are a prerequisite for comparisons across reports and should reflect the patient's perspective. According standards have been successfully introduced in many fields of modern medicine, but not yet for peripheral endovascular interventions. Given the overwhelmingly increasing importance of endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia, this report provides an updated outline of the heterogeneity of current reporting practice and highlights the need for uniform reporting standards.

Clinical endpoints in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), leading to a myriad of published studies reporting on various revascularization strategies. However, these reports are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. Moreover, few of these studies describe clinical outcomes from a patients' perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad-hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in peripheral arterial disease therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials for chronic lower limb ischemia. In this project, which started in 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. The efforts resulted in the current document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions in chronic lower limb PAD. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary 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. CONCLUSION: 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 chronic lower limb ischemia as well as for regulatory purposes.

Clinical trials in head injury

Secondary brain damage, following severe head injury is considered to be a major cause for bad outcome. Impressive reductions of the extent of brain damage in experimental studies have raised high expectations for cerebral neuroprotective treatment, in the clinic. Therefore multiple compounds were and are being evaluated in trials. In this review we discuss the pathomechanisms of traumatic brain damage, based upon their clinical importance. The role of hypothermia, mannitol, barbiturates, steroids, free radical scavengers, arachidonic acid inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, and potassium channel blockers, will be discussed. The importance of a uniform strategic approach for evaluation of potentially interesting new compounds in clinical trials, to ameliorate outcome in patients with severe head injury, is proposed. To achieve this goal, two nonprofit organizations were founded: the European Brain Injury Consortium (EBIC) and the American Brain Injury Consortium (ABIC). Their aim lies in conducting better clinical trials, which incorporate lessons learned from previous trials, such that the succession of negative, or incomplete studies, as performed in previous years, will cease.

Is adjuvant chemotherapy of benefit for postmenopausal women who receive endocrine treatment for highly endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer? International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VII and 12-93

To compare the efficacy of chemoendocrine treatment with that of endocrine treatment (ET) alone for postmenopausal women with highly endocrine responsive breast cancer. In the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trials VII and 12-93, postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or ER-negative, operable breast cancer were randomized to receive either chemotherapy or endocrine therapy or combined chemoendocrine treatment. Results were analyzed overall in the cohort of 893 patients with endocrine-responsive disease, and according to prospectively defined categories of ER, age and nodal status. STEPP analyses assessed chemotherapy effect. The median follow-up was 13 years. Adding chemotherapy reduced the relative risk of a disease-free survival event by 19% (P = 0.02) compared with ET alone. STEPP analyses showed little effect of chemotherapy for tumors with high levels of ER expression (P = 0.07), or for the cohort with one positive node (P = 0.03). Chemotherapy significantly improves disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, but the magnitude of the effect is substantially attenuated if ER levels are high.

Anemia during adjuvant non-taxane chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Incidence and risk factors from two trials of the International Breast Cancer Study Group

GOAL OF THE WORK: Anemia is a common side effect of chemotherapy. Limited information exists about its incidence and risk factors. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of anemia and risk factors for anemia occurrence in patients with early breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated risk factors for anemia in pre- and post/perimenopausal patients with lymph node-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in two randomized trials. All patients received four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil (CMF). Anemia incidence was related to baseline risk factors. Multivariable analysis used logistic and Cox regression. MAIN RESULTS: Among the 2,215 available patients, anemia was recorded in 11% during adjuvant chemotherapy. Grade 2 and 3 anemia occurred in 4 and 1% of patients, respectively. Pretreatment hemoglobin and white blood cells (WBC) were significant predictors of anemia. Adjusted odds ratios (logistic regression) comparing highest versus lowest quartiles were 0.18 (P < 0.0001) for hemoglobin and 0.52 (P = 0.0045) for WBC. Age, surgery type, platelets, body mass index, and length of time from surgery to chemotherapy were not significant predictors. Cox regression results looking at time to anemia were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate or severe anemia is rare among patients treated with AC followed by CMF. Low baseline hemoglobin and WBC are associated with a higher risk of anemia.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

Multidimensional preventive home visit programs for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Multidimensional preventive home visit programs aim at maintaining health and autonomy of older adults and preventing disability and subsequent nursing home admission, but results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been inconsistent. Our objective was to systematically review RCTs examining the effect of home visit programs on mortality, nursing home admissions, and functional status decline. METHODS: Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL database, and references. Studies were reviewed to identify RCTs that compared outcome data of older participants in preventive home visit programs with control group outcome data. Publications reporting 21 trials were included. Data on study population, intervention characteristics, outcomes, and trial quality were double-extracted. We conducted random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Pooled effects estimates revealed statistically nonsignificant favorable, and heterogeneous effects on mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.05), functional status decline (OR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.77-1.03), and nursing home admission (OR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.68-1.10). A beneficial effect on mortality was seen in younger study populations (OR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.94) but not in older populations (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.90-1.43). Functional decline was reduced in programs including a clinical examination in the initial assessment (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.48-0.87) but not in other trials (OR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.88-1.14). There was no single factor explaining the heterogenous effects of trials on nursing home admissions. CONCLUSION: Multidimensional preventive home visits have the potential to reduce disability burden among older adults when based on multidimensional assessment with clinical examination. Effects on nursing home admissions are heterogeneous and likely depend on multiple factors including population factors, program characteristics, and health care setting.

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

Survival and cardiac remodeling benefits in patients undergoing late percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) with medical therapy in patients randomized >12 h after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Glycemic control and macrovascular disease in types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Uncertainty persists concerning the effect of improved long-term glycemic control on macrovascular disease in diabetes mellitus (DM).

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of adequate allocation concealment and patient blinding with estimates of treatment benefits in osteoarthritis trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-epidemiologic study of 16 meta-analyses with 175 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. We calculated effect sizes from the differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of followup divided by the pooled SD and compared effect sizes between trials with and trials without adequate methodology. RESULTS: Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 46 trials with adequate allocation concealment compared with 112 trials with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation (difference -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.31, 0.02). Selection bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation was most pronounced in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits (P for interaction < 0.001), meta-analyses with high between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.009), and meta-analyses of complementary medicine (P = 0.019). Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 64 trials with adequate blinding of patients compared with 58 trials without (difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.39, 0.09), but differences were less consistent and disappeared after accounting for allocation concealment. Detection bias associated with a lack of adequate patient blinding was most pronounced for nonpharmacologic interventions (P for interaction < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results of osteoarthritis trials may be affected by selection and detection bias. Adequate concealment of allocation and attempts to blind patients will minimize these biases.

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.