A critical review of graphics for subgroup analyses in clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ballarini NM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647927 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A critical review of graphics for subgroup analyses in clinical trials.
Ballarini Nicolás M NM Chiu Yi-Da YD König Franz F Posch Martin M Jaki Thomas T
Pharmaceutical statistics 20200325 5
Subgroup analyses are a routine part of clinical trials to investigate whether treatment effects are homogeneous across the study population. Graphical approaches play a key role in subgroup analyses to visualise effect sizes of subgroups, to aid the identification of groups that respond differentially, and to communicate the results to a wider audience. Many existing approaches do not capture the core information and are prone to lead to a misinterpretation of the subgroup effects. In this work ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSubgroup 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionCompared 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.
| S-EPMC8174013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubgroup analyses are widely used to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. However, there is a limited investigation of the quality of prespecified and reported subgroup analyses in stroke trials. This study evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses in stroke trials.Methods and analysisWe searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from inception to 24 March 2021. Three reviewers screened, extracted, and analyzed the data from the publications. Primary publications of stroke trials that reported at least one subgroup effect and had published corresponding study protocols were included. The Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) was used to examine the quality of the subgroup effects reported, with each subgroup effect assigned a credibility rating ranging from very low to high. Subgroup effects with two or more "definitely no" responses received a low credibility rating. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials version 2.ResultsSeventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and reported a combined total of 647 subgroup effects. The median sample size was 1264 (interquartile range (IQR): 380-3876), and the median number of subgroups prespecified in the protocol was 6 (IQR: 2-10). Sixty-one (82%) studies used the univariate test of interaction. Of the total 647 subgroup effects reported in these studies, 319 (49%) were reported in acute stroke trials, while 423 (65%) had low credibility.ConclusionThe quality of subgroup analysis reporting in stroke trials remains poor. More effort is needed to train trialists on the best methods for designing and performing subgroup analyses, and how to report the results.Trial registration numberWe prospectively registered the review with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42020223133).
| S-EPMC10676048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The quality of subgroup analyses (SGAs) in chronic non-cancer pain trials is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2012 to September 2018 to identify eligible trials. Two pairs of reviewers assessed the quality of the SGAs and the credibility of subgroup claims using the 10 criteria developed by Sun et al. in 2012. The associations between the quality of the SGAs and the studies' characteristics including risk of bias, funding sources, sample size, and the latest impact factor, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Our search retrieved 3,401 articles of which 66 were eligible. The total number of SGAs was 177 of which 52 (29.4%) made a subgroup claim. Of these, only 15 (8.5%) were evaluated as being of high quality. Among the 30 SGAs that claimed subgroup effects using an appropriate method of performing interaction tests, the credibility of only 5 were assessed as high. None of the subgroup claims met all the credibility criteria. No significant association was found between the quality of SGAs and the studies' characteristics. The quality of the SGAs performed in chronic pain trials was poor. To enhance the quality of SGAs, scholars should consider the developed criteria when designing and conducting trials, particularly those which need to be specified a priori .
| S-EPMC8019964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several recent phase 3 clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications have used the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P). Here, we assess WFIRS-P response in individual patients in two pivotal trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and guanfacine extended release (GXR). We also analysed pooled WFIRS-P data from seven phase 3 studies of ADHD medications to shed light on factors associated with baseline functional impairment. The proportion of patients with a change in WFIRS-P score that exceeded the minimal important difference (MID) criteria for response was greater for LDX than placebo in the Family, Learning and School, and Risky Activities domains, and was greater for GXR than placebo in the Social Activities, Learning and School, and Family domains. Responders had significantly worse baseline scores in all WFIRS-P domains (all p < 0.001) than non-responders. In the pooled analyses, baseline WFIRS-P scores in all domains were significantly worse in participants with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) than in those without ODD. Having combined type or hyperactive-impulsive type ADHD, being enrolled into a study in Europe, being male and being younger also had modest negative effects on baseline WFIRS-P scores. The present analysis of WFIRS-P response shows that previously reported group-level improvements in WFIRS-P functional impairment score translated into clinically relevant improvements in many individual participants. Functional impairment is a diverse and subjective construct that is influenced by multiple factors. Optimal management of individuals with ADHD should involve monitoring improvements in functioning and quality of life, as well as symptomatic improvement.
| S-EPMC8060241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pulmonary hypertension (PH) treatment decisions are driven by the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subgroup analyses are often performed to assess whether the intervention effect will change due to the patient's characteristics, thus allowing for individualized decisions. This review aimed to evaluate the appropriateness and interpretation of subgroup analyses performed in PH-specific therapy RCTs published between 2000 and 2020. Claims of subgroup effects were evaluated with prespecified criteria. Overall, 30 RCTs were included. Subgroup analyses presented: a high number of subgroup analyses reported, lack of prespecification, and lack of interaction tests. The trial protocol was not available for most RCTs; significant differences were found in those articles that published the protocol. Authors reported 13 claims of subgroup effect, with 12 claims meeting four or fewer of Sun's criteria. Even when most RCTs were generally at low risk of bias and were published in high-impact journals, the credibility and general quality of subgroup analyses and subgroup claims were low due to methodological flaws. Clinicians should be skeptical of claims of subgroup effects and interpret subgroup analyses with caution, as due to their poor quality, these analyses may not serve as guidance for personalized care.
| S-EPMC9224970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medulloblastoma is a heterogeneous disease with at least four distinct molecular subgroups: wingless (WNT), sonic hedgehog (SHH), Group 3, and Group 4. Recently there has been considerable progress defining the molecular drivers and prognostic factors of each subgroup. However, this information has only rarely been used to stratify risk or impact treatment. The purpose of this work is to provide an update on current clinical trials that provide molecularly stratified treatment paradigms. A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov using the following search terms: "medulloblastoma and subgroup", "medulloblastoma and SHH", "medulloblastoma and WNT", and "medulloblastoma and Non-WNT/Non-SHH". This search resulted in nine distinct clinical trials, five for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma and four for recurrent medulloblastoma. Four trials for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma had a component of craniospinal irradiation reduction for patients with WNT medulloblastoma. Molecularly stratified trials for recurrent medulloblastoma largely focus on SHH. As these trials are ongoing, there are limited data available. A trial in which newly-diagnosed WNT patients received modest chemotherapy without radiation has been closed to accrual due to several early failures. Phase II trials evaluating vismodegib for SHH medulloblastoma in children and adults have been disappointing. In conclusion, although there is an expanding array of clinical trials which incorporate molecular data in prescribing treatment for newly-diagnosed and recurrent medulloblastoma, treatments for these diseases are fairly uniform, with craniospinal radiation dose being the main variable. As the drivers of the distinct subgroups and their associated prognoses are better elucidated, future clinical trials and novel targeted agents are needed to improve outcomes and reduce toxicity where feasible.
| S-EPMC7237968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review examines the landscape of extracellular vesicle (EV)-related clinical trials to elucidate the field's trends in clinical applications and EV-related methodologies, with an additional focus on the acknowledgement of EV subpopulations. By analysing data from public reporting repositories, we catalogued 471 EV-related clinical trials to date, with indications for over 200 diseases. Diagnostics and companion diagnostics represented the bulk of EV-related clinical trials with cancer being the most frequent application. EV-related therapeutics trials mainly utilized mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) EVs and were most frequently used for treatment of respiratory illnesses. Ultracentrifugation and RNA-sequencing were the most common isolation and characterization techniques; however, methodology for each was not frequently reported in study records. Most of the reported characterization relied on bulk characterization of EV isolates, with only 11% utilizing EV subpopulations in their experimental design. While this may be connected to a lack of available techniques suitable for clinical implementation, it also highlights the opportunity for use of EV subpopulations to improve translational efforts. As academic research identifies more chemically distinct subpopulations and technologies for their enrichment, we forecast to more refined EV trials in the near future. This review emphasizes the need for meticulous methodological reporting and consideration of EV subpopulations to enhance the translational success of EV-based interventions, pointing towards a paradigm shift in personalized medicine.
| S-EPMC11428870 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6173170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One challenge in caring for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a paucity of approved therapeutics for treatment of the diverse disease manifestations. In the last 60 years, only one drug, belimumab, has been approved for SLE treatment. Critical evaluation of investigator initiated and pharma-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) highlights barriers to successful drug development in SLE, including disease heterogeneity, inadequate trial size or duration, insufficient dose finding before initiation of large trials, handling of background medications, and choice of primary endpoint. Herein we examine lessons learned from landmark SLE RCTs and subsequent advances in trial design, as well as discuss efforts to address limitations in current SLE outcome measures that will improve detection of true therapeutic responses in future RCTs.
| S-EPMC4978143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the reporting of subgroup analyses in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine the strength and credibility of subgroup claims.Methods and resultsAll primary HF RCTs published in nine high-impact journals from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 were included. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors that may favour the reporting of results in specific subgroups. Strength of the subgroup effect claimed was classified into (i) strong, (ii) likely, or (iii) suggestive. Credibility of subgroup claim was scored using a pre-specified 10 pointer criteria. Of the 261 HF RCTs studied, 107 (41%) reported subgroup analyses. Twenty-five (23%) RCTs claimed a subgroup effect for the primary outcome of which six (24%) made a strong claim, eight (32%) claimed a likely effect, and 11 (44%) suggested a possible subgroup effect. Seven of the 25 RCTs did not employ interaction testing for subgroup claims of the primary outcome. Three out of 10 pre-specified credibility criteria were satisfied by half of the trials. Fourteen trials justified the choice of subgroups, and 10 explicitly stated they were underpowered to detect differences within subgroups. Source of funding did not influence the frequency of reporting subgroup analyses (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.78-3.62, P = 0.52).ConclusionsAppropriate credibility criteria were rarely met even by HF RCTs that held strong subgroup claims. Subgroup analyses should be pre-specified, be adequately powered, present interaction terms, and be replicated in independent data before being integrated into clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC7835611 | biostudies-literature