Dataset Information

Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience.

ABSTRACT: To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.349 RCTs (73?018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67?128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.

SUBMITTER: Fayard F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6091903 | biostudies-other | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesMeta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.SettingTwo linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.ParticipantsParticipants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.ResultsAcross the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.ConclusionSharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:Importance:Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in cancer medicine, especially because drugs are becoming more costly and may only result in modest gains in overall survival. However, there has been no descriptive analysis for the points at which QoL is measured in cancer trials. Objective:To estimate the prevalence of studies that measure QoL at different points and see how many studies measure QoL for the entirety of a patient's life. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional analysis includes all articles on oncology clinical trials in the 3 highest-impact oncology journals, published between July 2015 and June 2018, that reported QoL outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures:Data were abstracted on when QoL was assessed and the characteristics of these studies. Results:For all 149 studies that met inclusion criteria, QoL assessment was high during treatment (104 articles [69.8%]), during follow-up (81 articles [54.4%]), and after the end of the intervention (68 articles [45.6%]). In 5 of the 149 studies (3.4%), QoL was assessed until death, including in only 1 of the 74 studies on metastatic or incurable cancers. Among these 5 studies, only 1 (20%) used a drug intervention, 1 (20%) used a behavioral intervention, and 2 (40%) used a radiation intervention; only 1 of 5 was in the metastatic setting. The number of studies that reported a positive QoL outcome (ie, QoL outcome was more favorable in the intervention group than in the control group) was between 42 of 81 articles (51.9%) and 16 of 28 articles (57.1%) for most QoL assessment points but only 1 of 5 articles (20%) for studies measuring QoL until death. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that most clinical trials assessed QoL during the treatment or intervention and often during a given amount of follow-up but infrequently assessed QoL on disease progression and rarely followed QoL until the end of the patient's life. Most studies reporting QoL until the end of life reported worse QoL outcomes for the intervention group than the control group. Future research and policy recommendations should consider not just short-term QoL outcomes but QoL outcomes throughout the patient's cancer care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer on the outcomes of live birth, multiple live birth, miscarriage, preterm birth, term singleton birth, and low birth weight after fresh embryo transfer, and on the outcomes of cumulative live birth and multiple live birth after fresh and frozen embryo transfers.DesignOne stage meta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sourcesA systematic review of English and non-English articles from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to 2008). Additional studies were identified by contact with clinical experts and searches of bibliographies of all relevant primary articles. Search terms included embryo transfer, randomised controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, single embryo transfer, and double embryo transfer. Review methods Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of cleavage stage (day 2 or 3) elective single versus double embryo transfer after fresh or frozen in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were included. Trials were included if the intervention differed only in terms of the intended number of embryos to be transferred. Trials that involved only blastocyst (day five) transfers were excluded.ResultsIndividual patient data were received for every patient recruited to all eight eligible trials (n=1367). A total of 683 and 684 women randomised to the single and double embryo transfer arms, respectively, were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the two groups were comparable. The overall live birth rate in a fresh IVF cycle was lower after single (181/683, 27%) than double embryo transfer (285/683, 42%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.63), as was the multiple birth rate (3/181 (2%) v 84/285 (29%)) (0.04, 0.01 to 0.12). An additional frozen single embryo transfer, however, resulted in a cumulative live birth rate not significantly lower than the rate after one fresh double embryo transfer (132/350 (38%) v 149/353 (42%) (0.85, 0.62 to 1.15), with a minimal cumulative risk of multiple birth (1/132 (1%) v 47/149 (32%)). The odds of a term singleton birth (that is, over 37 weeks) after elective single embryo transfer was almost five times higher than the odds after double embryo transfer (4.93, 2.98 to 8.18).ConclusionsElective single embryo transfer results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with double embryo transfer. Although this strategy yields a lower pregnancy rate than a double embryo transfer in a fresh IVF cycle, this difference is almost completely overcome by an additional frozen single embryo transfer cycle. The multiple pregnancy rate after elective single embryo transfer is comparable with that observed in spontaneous pregnancies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics.DesignIndividual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesSearches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding.ResultsThe meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen.ConclusionsP2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020176853.

Project description:BackgroundThe vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124,513 participants, 68,342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229,296 participants, 165,456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed).FindingsMajor vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14-1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12-1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31-2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19-2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10-4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89-2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69-1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00-2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95-2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56-6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48-2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17-2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16-3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22-7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71-6·56, p<0·0001).InterpretationThe vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making.FundingUK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Dataset Information

Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets