Dataset Information

A novel method to adjust efficacy estimates for uptake of other active treatments in long-term clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

When rates of uptake of other drugs differ between treatment arms in long-term trials, the true benefit or harm of the treatment may be underestimated. Methods to allow for such contamination have often been limited by failing to preserve the randomization comparisons. In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, patients were randomized to fenofibrate or placebo, but during the trial many started additional drugs, particularly statins, more so in the placebo group. The effects of fenofibrate estimated by intention-to-treat were likely to have been attenuated. We aimed to quantify this effect and to develop a method for use in other long-term trials.

Methodology/principal findings

We applied efficacies of statins and other cardiovascular drugs from meta-analyses of randomized trials to adjust the effect of fenofibrate in a penalized Cox model. We assumed that future cardiovascular disease events were reduced by an average of 24% by statins, and 20% by a first other major cardiovascular drug. We applied these estimates to each patient who took these drugs for the period they were on them. We also adjusted the analysis by the rate of discontinuing fenofibrate. Among 4,900 placebo patients, average statin use was 16% over five years. Among 4,895 assigned fenofibrate, statin use was 8% and nonuse of fenofibrate was 10%. In placebo patients, use of cardiovascular drugs was 1% to 3% higher. Before adjustment, fenofibrate was associated with an 11% reduction in coronary events (coronary heart disease death or myocardial infarction) (P = 0.16) and an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease events (P = 0.04). After adjustment, the effects of fenofibrate on coronary events and cardiovascular disease events were 16% (P = 0.06) and 15% (P = 0.008), respectively.

Conclusions/significance

This novel application of a penalized Cox model for adjustment of a trial estimate of treatment efficacy incorporates evidence-based estimates for other therapies, preserves comparisons between the randomized groups, and is applicable to other long-term trials. In the FIELD study example, the effects of fenofibrate on the risks of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events were underestimated by up to one-third in the original analysis.

Trial registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN64783481.

SUBMITTER: Simes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2798963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Audits are often performed to assess the quality of clinical trial data, but beyond detecting fraud or sloppiness, the audit data are generally ignored. In an earlier study, using data from a nonrandomized study, Shepherd and Yu developed statistical methods to incorporate audit results into study estimates and demonstrated that audit data could be used to eliminate bias.In this article, we examine the usefulness of audit-based error-correction methods in clinical trial settings where a continuous outcome is of primary interest.We demonstrate the bias of multiple linear regression estimates in general settings with an outcome that may have errors and a set of covariates for which some may have errors and others, including treatment assignment, are recorded correctly for all subjects. We study this bias under different assumptions, including independence between treatment assignment, covariates, and data errors (conceivable in a double-blinded randomized trial) and independence between treatment assignment and covariates but not data errors (possible in an unblinded randomized trial). We review moment-based estimators to incorporate the audit data and propose new multiple imputation estimators. The performance of estimators is studied in simulations.When treatment is randomized and unrelated to data errors, estimates of the treatment effect using the original error-prone data (i.e., ignoring the audit results) are unbiased. In this setting, both moment and multiple imputation estimators incorporating audit data are more variable than standard analyses using the original data. In contrast, in settings where treatment is randomized but correlated with data errors and in settings where treatment is not randomized, standard treatment-effect estimates will be biased. And in all settings, parameter estimates for the original, error-prone covariates will be biased. The treatment and covariate effect estimates can be corrected by incorporating audit data using either the multiple imputation or moment-based approaches. Bias, precision, and coverage of confidence intervals improve as the audit size increases.The extent of bias and the performance of methods depend on the extent and nature of the error as well as the size of the audit. This study only considers methods for the linear model. Settings much different than those considered here need further study.In randomized trials with continuous outcomes and treatment assignment independent of data errors, standard analyses of treatment effects will be unbiased and are recommended. However, if treatment assignment is correlated with data errors or other covariates, naive analyses may be biased. In these settings, and when covariate effects are of interest, approaches for incorporating audit results should be considered.

Project description:Background: Recent evidence suggests that psychosocial treatments, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are effective interventions for adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The objective of this review was to determine the long-term efficacy of psychosocial interventions in improving clinically relevant variables, including ADHD core symptoms, clinical global impression (CGI), and global functioning. Methods: In total, nine randomized controlled trials and three uncontrolled single-group pretest-posttest studies were included. The data from these studies were combined using the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed, to determine the influence of different potential moderator variables (risk of bias, medication status, follow-up length, therapy type and setting, and control group type) on effect size (ES) estimates. Results: Up to 680 of a total of 1,073 participants assessed pre-treatment were retained at follow-up. Treatment groups showed greater improvement than control groups in self-reported total ADHD symptoms, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity, in addition to CGI and global functioning. Blind assessors also reported a large ES in within-subject outcomes. Studies using dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) in a group setting, with active control matching, and that were rated as having an unclear risk of bias, achieved significantly lower ES estimates for most outcomes. Treatment effectiveness, according to the CGI measure, and global functioning were significantly increased when the percentage of medicated participants was greater. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the post-treatment gains reported in previous reviews are sustained for at least 12 months. Nevertheless, these results must be interpreted with caution, because of a high level of heterogeneity among studies and the risk of bias observed in the majority of outcomes. Thus, these findings indicate that psychological interventions are a highly valuable and stable clinical tool for the treatment of core symptoms and global functioning in adults with ADHD.

Project description:BackgroundDecisions about trial funding, ethical approval, or clinical practice guideline recommendations require expert judgments about the potential efficacy of new treatments. We tested whether individual and aggregated expert opinion of oncologists could predict reliably the efficacy of cancer treatments tested in randomized controlled trials.Materials and methodsAn international sample of 137 oncologists specializing in genitourinary, lung, and colorectal cancer provided forecasts on primary outcome attainment for five active randomized cancer trials within their subspecialty; skill was assessed using Brier scores (BS), which measure the average squared deviation between forecasts and outcomes.ResultsA total of 40% of trials in our sample reported positive primary outcomes. Experts generally anticipated this overall frequency (mean forecast, 34%). Individual experts on average outperformed random predictions (mean BS = 0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-0.33] vs. 0.33) but underperformed prediction algorithms that always guessed 50% (BS = 0.25) or that were trained on base rates (BS = 0.19). Aggregating forecasts improved accuracy (BS = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36]). Neither individual experts nor aggregated predictions showed appreciable discrimination between positive and nonpositive trials (area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.52 and 0.43, respectively).ConclusionThese findings are based on a limited sample of trials. However, they reinforce the importance of basing research and policy decisions on the results of randomized trials rather than expert opinion or low-level evidence.Implications for practicePredictions of oncologists, either individually or in the aggregate, did not anticipate reliably outcomes for randomized trials in cancer. These findings suggest that pooled expert opinion about treatment efficacy is no substitute for randomized trials. They also underscore the challenges of using expert opinion to prioritize interventions for clinical trials or to make recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Project description:IntroductionLong-term psychodynamic/psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) is a prevalent treatment option for complex mental disorders. Yet, little is known about the role of treatment intensity in LTPP. We present a study protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis aggregating and analysing individual data from randomised and quasi-experimental trials by meta-analysis. The purpose is to (1) determine the treatment effectiveness of LTPP with low versus high intensity (up to 2 weekly sessions vs three or more), (2) compare their joint effectiveness to shorter therapies and treatments as usual, (3) identify predictors and moderators of treatment outcomes and (4) determine reciprocal relationships between different outcome domains (symptomatic and structural/personality change) over the courses of LTPP.Methods and analysisWe include studies from (randomised controlled trial, RCT) and quasi-experimental trials, where at least one condition was LTPP of high or low frequency. Long-term treatment is defined as ≥1 year or ≥50 sessions. To be eligible studies must include a standardised outcome measure of symptoms (global or disorder specific) with at least one proof of reliability. The primary outcome is symptom reduction (global or specific), secondary outcome criteria are reliable change, remission, functional capacities, personality, personality functioning and interpersonal pathology. Relevant studies will mainly be identified by searching relevant databases: PubMed, PsycINFO (via EBSCO), Web of Science (via Elsevier), Chochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley). Risk of bias will be evaluated in line with the Cochrane assessments tools for quasi-experimental trials and RCTs, respectively.Ethics and disseminationAggregation of data from primary trials collected based on ethics votes. Dissemination into clinical practice via open access publications of findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42022304982; Pre-results.