Three-dimensional imaging core laboratory of the endovascular aneurysm repair trials: validation of methodology

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish and validate a three-dimensional imaging protocol for the assessment of Computed Tomography (CT) scans of abdominal aortic aneurysms in UK EVAR trials patients. Quality control and repeatability of anatomical measurements is important for the validity of any core laboratory. METHODS: Three different observers performed anatomical measurements on 50 preoperative CT scans of aortic aneurysms using the Vitrea 2 three-dimensional post-imaging software in a core laboratory setting. We assessed the accuracy of intra and inter observer repeatability of measurements, the time required for collection of measurements, 3 different levels of automation and 3 different automated criteria for measurement of neck length. RESULTS: None of the automated neck length measurements demonstrated sufficient accuracy and it was necessary to perform checking of the important automated landmarks. Good intra and limited inter observer agreement were achieved with three-dimensional assessment. Complete assessment of the aneurysm and iliacs took an average (SD) of 17.2 (4.1) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic aneurysm anatomy can be assessed reliably and quickly using three-dimensional assessment but for scans of limited quality, manual checking of important landmarks remains necessary. Using a set protocol, agreement between observers is satisfactory but not as good as within observers.

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials

A system for screening of nutritional risk is described. It is based on the concept that nutritional support is indicated in patients who are severely ill with increased nutritional requirements, or who are severely undernourished, or who have certain degrees of severity of disease in combination with certain degrees of undernutrition. Degrees of severity of disease and undernutrition were defined as absent, mild, moderate or severe from data sets in a selected number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and converted to a numeric score. After completion, the screening system was validated against all published RCTs known to us of nutritional support vs spontaneous intake to investigate whether the screening system could distinguish between trials with a positive outcome and trials with no effect on outcome.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials

BACKGROUND There is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS We pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS Of 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.74-1.21, P=0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.65-1.22, P=0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio=0.52, 95% CI=0.28-0.96, P=0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4years (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% CI=0.03-0.70, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.