Dataset Information

A systematic review of subgroup analyses in randomised clinical trials in cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Subgroup analyses are frequently used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomised clinical trials. Inconsistent, improper and incomplete implementation, reporting and interpretation have been identified as ongoing challenges. Further, subgroup analyses were frequently criticised because of unreliable or potentially misleading results. More recently, recommendations and guidelines have been provided to improve the reporting of data in this regard.

Methods

This systematic review was based on a literature search within the digital archives of three selected medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Circulation. We reviewed articles of randomised clinical trials in the domain of cardiovascular disease which were published in 2015 and 2016. We screened and evaluated the selected articles for the mode of implementation and reporting of subgroup analyses.

Results

We were able to identify a total of 130 eligible publications of randomised clinical trials. In 89/130 (68%) articles, results of at least one subgroup analysis were presented. This was dependent on the considered journal (p < 0.001), the number of included patients (p < 0.001) and the lack of statistical significance of a trial's primary analysis (p < 0.001). The number of reported subgroup analyses ranged from 1 to 101 (median = 13). We were able to comprehend the specification time of reported subgroup analyses for 71/89 (80%) articles, with 55/89 (62%) articles presenting exclusively pre-specified analyses. This information was not always traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols and often did not include the pre-definition of cut-off values for the categorization of subgroups. The use of interaction tests was reported in 84/89 (94%) articles, with 36/89 (40%) articles reporting heterogeneity of the treatment effect for at least one primary or secondary trial outcome. Subgroup analyses were reported more frequently for larger randomised clinical trials, and if primary analyses did not reach statistical significance. Information about the implementation of subgroup analyses was reported most consistently for articles from The New England Journal of Medicine, since it was also traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols. We were able to comprehend whether subgroup analyses were pre-specified in a majority of the reviewed publications. Even though results of multiple subgroup analyses were reported for most published trials, a corresponding adjustment for multiple testing was rarely considered.

Conclusion

Compared to previous reviews in this context, we observed improvements in the reporting of subgroup analyses of cardiovascular randomised clinical trials. Nonetheless, critical shortcomings, such as inconsistent reporting of the implementation and insufficient pre-specification, persist.

SUBMITTER: Brand KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8174013 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of industry funding on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials published in 118 core clinical journals (defined by the National Library of Medicine) in 2007. 1140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio by high (five general medicine journals with largest number of total citations in 2007) versus lower impact journals, were randomly sampled. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, used standardised, piloted forms to screen study reports for eligibility and to extract data. They also used explicit criteria to determine whether a randomised controlled trial reported subgroup analyses. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with reporting versus not reporting of subgroup analyses.Results469 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 207 (44%) reported subgroup analyses. High impact journals (adjusted odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval 1.62 to 4.33), non-surgical (versus surgical) trials (2.10, 1.26 to 3.50), and larger sample size (3.38, 1.64 to 6.99) were associated with more frequent reporting of subgroup analyses. The strength of association between trial funding and reporting of subgroups differed in trials with and without statistically significant primary outcomes (interaction P=0.02). In trials without statistically significant results for the primary outcome, industry funded trials were more likely to report subgroup analyses (2.29, 1.30 to 4.72) than non-industry funded trials. This was not true for trials with a statistically significant primary outcome (0.79, 0.46 to 1.36). Industry funded trials were associated with less frequent prespecification of subgroup hypotheses (31.3% v 38.0%, adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 0.26 to 0.94), and less use of the interaction test for analyses of subgroup effects (41.4% v 49.1%, 0.52, 0.28 to 0.97) than non-industry funded trials.ConclusionIndustry funded randomised controlled trials, in the absence of statistically significant primary outcomes, are more likely to report subgroup analyses than non-industry funded trials. Industry funded trials less frequently prespecify subgroup hypotheses and less frequently test for interaction than non-industry funded trials. Subgroup analyses from industry funded trials with negative results for the primary outcome should be viewed with caution.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundTrial design plays a key role in clinical trials. Traditional group sequential design has been used in cardiovascular clinical trials over decades as the trials can potentially be stopped early, therefore, it can reduce pre-planned sample size and trial resources. In contrast, trials with adoptive designs provide greater flexibility and are more efficient due to the ability to modify trial design according to the interim analysis results. In this systematic review, we aim to explore characteristics of adaptive and traditional group sequential trials in practice and to gain an understanding how these trial designs are currently being reported in cardiology.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched from January 1980 to June 2022. Randomised controlled phase 2/3 trials with either adaptive or traditional group sequential design in patients with cardiovascular disease were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present the collected data.ResultsOf 456 articles found in the initial search, 56 were identified including 43 (76.8%) trials with traditional group sequential design and 13 (23.2%) with adaptive. Most trials were large, multicentre, led by the USA (50%) and Europe (28.6%), and were funded by companies (78.6%). For trials with group sequential design, frequency of interim analyses was determined mainly by the number of events (47%). 67% of the trials stopped early, in which 14 (32.6%) were due to efficacy, and 5 (11.6%) for futility. The commonly used stopping rule to terminate trials was O'Brien- Fleming-type alpha spending function (10 (23.3%)). For trials with adaptive designs, 54% of the trials stopped early, in which 4 (30.8%) were due to futility, and 2 (15.4%) for efficacy. Sample size re-estimation was commonly used (8 (61.5%)). In 69% of the trials, simulation including Bayesian approach was used to define the statistical stopping rules. The adaptive designs have been increasingly used (from 0 to 1999 to 38.6% after 2015 amongst adaptive trials). 25% of the trials reported "adaptive" in abstract or title of the studies.ConclusionsThe application of adaptive trials is increasingly popular in cardiovascular clinical trials. The reporting of adaptive design needs improving.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsSubgroup 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.