Dataset Information

Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Blinded outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design is challenging. Unblinding can result in misclassified outcomes and biased treatment effect estimates. An outcome adjudication committee assures blinded outcome assessment, but the added value for trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design and subjective outcomes is unknown. We aimed to assess the degree of misclassification of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores by a central assessor and its impact on treatment effect estimates in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design.

Methods

We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The primary outcome was the mRS at 90 days. Standardized, algorithm-based telephone interviews to assess the mRS were conducted from a central location by an experienced research nurse, unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation (central assessor). Masked reports of these interviews were adjudicated by a blinded outcome committee. Misclassification was defined as an incorrect classification of the mRS by the central assessor. The effect of endovascular treatment on the mRS was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression.

Results

In MR CLEAN, 53/500 (10.6%) of the mRS scores were misclassified. The degree and direction of misclassification did not differ between treatment arms (P=0.59). Benefit of endovascular treatment was shown on the mRS when scored by the central assessor (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16-2.21]) and the outcome adjudication committee (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.21-2.20]).

Conclusions

Misclassification by the central assessor was small, randomly distributed over treatment arms, and did not affect treatment effect estimates. This study suggests that the added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee is limited in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design applying standardized, algorithm-based outcome assessment by a central assessor, who is unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

SUBMITTER: van der Ende NAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700318 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and severe prolonged disability. Intracranial hypertension (ICH) is a critical risk factor of bad outcomes after TBI. Continuous infusion of hyperosmolar therapy has been proposed for the prevention and the treatment of ICH. Whether an early administration of continuous hyperosmolar therapy improves long-term outcomes of patients with TBI is uncertain. The aim of the COBI study (number clinicaltrial.gov 03143751, pre-results stage) is to assess the efficiency and the safety of continuous hyperosmolar therapy in patients with TBI.Methods and analysisThe COBI (COntinuous hyperosmolar therapy in traumatic Brain-Injured patients) trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, two-arms study with blinded adjudication of primary outcome. Three hundred and seventy patients hospitalised in intensive care unit with a TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤12 and abnormal brain CT scan) are randomised in the first 24 hours following trauma to standard care or continuous hyperosmolar therapy (20% NaCl) plus standard care. Continuous hyperosmolar therapy is maintained for at least 48 hours in the treatment group and continued for as long as is necessary to prevent ICH. The primary outcome is the score on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 months. The treatment effect is estimated with ordinal logistic regression adjusted for prespecified prognostic factors and expressed as a common OR.Ethics and disseminationThe COBI trial protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of Paris Ile de France VIII and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. The COBI trial is the first randomised controlled trial powered to investigate whether continuous hyperosmolar therapy in patients with TBI improve long-term recovery.Trial registration numberTrial registration number is NCT03143751.

Project description:BackgroundOral and pharyngeal swallowing dysfunction are common complications in acute stroke patients. This primary aim of this study was to determine whether oral neuromuscular training improves swallowing function in participants with swallowing dysfunction after stroke. A secondary aim was to assess how well results of the timed water-swallow test (TWST) correspond with swallowing dysfunction diagnosed by videofluoroscopy (VFS).MethodsThis was an intention-to-treat two-centre prospective randomized open-label study with blinded-evaluators (PROBE) design. At 4 weeks after stroke onset, participants with swallowing dysfunction were randomized to 5 weeks of continued orofacial sensory-vibration stimulation with an electric toothbrush or additional oral neuromuscular training with an oral device (Muppy®). Participants were examined with TWST, a lip-force test, and VFS before (baseline), after 5 weeks' treatment (the end-of-treatment), and 12 months after treatment (follow-up). The baseline VFS results were compared with the TWST results. The primary endpoint was changes in swallowing rate assessed using TWST, from baseline to the end of training and from baseline to follow-up based on intention-to-treat analyses. The secondary endpoint was the corresponding changes in lip-force between baseline, the end of treatment, and follow-up.ResultsThe participants were randomly assigned as controls (n = 20) or for intervention with oral neuromuscular training (n = 20). After treatment, both groups had improved significantly (intervention, P < 0.001; controls, P = 0.001) in TWST but there was no significant between-group difference in swallowing rate. At the 12-month follow-up, the intervention group had improved further whereas the controls had deteriorated, and there were significant between-group differences in swallowing rate (P = 0.032) and lip force (P = 0.001). A TWST < 10 mL/sec at baseline corresponded to VFS-verified swallowing dysfunction in all assessed participants.ConclusionThe 5-week oral neuromuscular training improved swallowing function in participants with post-stroke dysphagia compared with the controls 12 months after intervention, but there was no between-group difference in improvement immediately after treatment. TWST results corresponded with VFS results, making TWST a feasible method for identifying persons with swallowing dysfunction after stroke. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to confirm our preliminary positive long-term results.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04164420 . Registered on 15 November 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical practice, physicians often need to change the antipsychotic medications they give to patients because of an inadequate response or the presence of unacceptable or unsafe side effects. However, there is a lack of consensus in the field as to the optimal switching strategy for antipsychotics, especially with regards to the speed at which the dose of the previous antipsychotic should be reduced. This paper assesses the short-term results of strategies for the discontinuation of olanzapine when initiating risperidone.MethodsIn a 6-week, randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study, patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, on a stable drug dose for more than 30 days at entry, who were intolerant of or exhibiting a suboptimal symptom response to more than 30 days of olanzapine treatment, were randomly assigned to the following switch strategies (common risperidone initiation scheme; varying olanzapine discontinuation): (i) abrupt strategy, where olanzapine was discontinued at risperidone initiation; (ii) gradual 1 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 50% entry dose for 1 week after risperidone initiation and then discontinued; or (iii) gradual 2 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 100% entry dose for 1 week, then at 50% in the second week, and then discontinued.ResultsThe study enrolled 123 patients on stable doses of olanzapine. Their mean age was 40.3 years and mean (+/- standard deviation (SD)) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of 75.6 +/- 11.5. All-cause treatment discontinuation was lowest (12%) in the group with the slowest olanzapine dose reduction (gradual 2) and occurred at half the discontinuation rate in the other two groups (25% in abrupt and 28% in gradual 1). The relative risk of early discontinuation was 0.77 (confidence interval 0.61-0.99) for the slowest dose reduction compared with the other two strategies. After the medication was changed, improvements at endpoint were seen in PANSS total score (-7.3; p < 0.0001) and in PANSS positive (-3.0; p < 0.0001), negative (-0.9; p = 0.171) and anxiety/depression (-1.4; p = 0.0005) subscale scores. Severity of movement disorders and weight changes were minimal.ConclusionWhen switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone, a gradual reduction in the dose of olanzapine over 2 weeks was associated with higher rates of retention compared with abrupt or less gradual discontinuation. Switching via any strategy was associated with significant improvements in positive and anxiety symptoms and was generally well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00378183.

Project description:BackgroundDiffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.MethodsRole of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.DiscussionREVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough statin therapy is beneficial for the prevention of initial stroke, the benefit for recurrent stroke and its subtypes remains to be determined in Asian, in whom stroke profiles are different from Caucasian. This study examined whether treatment with low-dose pravastatin prevents stroke recurrence in ischemic stroke patients.MethodsThis is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group study of patients who experienced non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke. All patients had a total cholesterol level between 4.65 and 6.21 mmol/L at enrollment, without the use of statins. The pravastatin group patients received 10 mg of pravastatin/day; the control group patients received no statins. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), with the onset of each stroke subtype set to be one of the secondary endpoints.FindingAlthough 3000 patients were targeted, 1578 patients (491 female, age 66.2 years) were recruited and randomly assigned to pravastatin group or control group. During the follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years, although total stroke and TIA similarly occurred in both groups (2.56 vs. 2.65%/year), onset of atherothrombotic infarction was less frequent in pravastatin group (0.21 vs. 0.64%/year, p = 0.0047, adjusted hazard ratio 0.33 [95%CI 0.15 to 0.74]). No significant intergroup difference was found for the onset of other stroke subtypes, and for the occurrence of adverse events.InterpretationAlthough whether low-dose pravastatin prevents recurrence of total stroke or TIA still needs to be examined in Asian, this study has generated a hypothesis that it may reduce occurrence of stroke due to larger artery atherosclerosis.FundingThis study was initially supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. After the governmental support expired, it was conducted in collaboration between Hiroshima University and the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation.