Search

Background: Medication abortion, with a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, is highly effective and safe. However, there is insufficient evidence on efficacy and safety at very early gestations before a pregnancy can be visualized with ultrasonography., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial involving women requesting medication abortion at up to 42 days of gestation with an unconfirmed intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound examination (visualized as an empty cavity or a sac-like structure without a yolk sac or embryonic pole). Participants were randomly assigned to either immediate start of abortion (early-start group) or standard-care treatment delayed until intrauterine pregnancy was confirmed (standard group). The primary outcome was complete abortion. The noninferiority margin was set at 3.0 percentage points for the absolute between-group difference., Results: In total, 1504 women were included at 26 sites in nine countries and were randomly assigned to the early-start group (754 participants) or the standard group (750 participants). In an intention-to-treat analysis, a complete abortion occurred in 676 of 710 participants (95.2%) in the early-start group and in 656 of 688 (95.3%) in the standard group; the absolute between-group difference was -0.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -2.4 to 2.1). Ectopic pregnancies occurred in 10 of 741 participants (1.3%) in the early-start group and in 6 of 724 (0.8%) in the standard group, with one rupture before diagnosis (early-start group). Serious adverse events occurred in 12 of 737 participants (1.6%) in the early-start group and in 5 of 718 (0.7%) in the standard group (P = 0.10); the majority were uncomplicated hospitalizations for treatment of ectopic pregnancy or incomplete abortion., Conclusions: Medication abortion before confirmed intrauterine pregnancy was noninferior to standard, delayed treatment with respect to complete abortion. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; VEMA EudraCT number, 2018-003675-35; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03989869.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: To undertake meta-analysis and compare treatment effects estimated by the intention-to-treat (ITT) method and per-protocol (PP) method in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PP excludes trial participants who are non-adherent to trial protocol in terms of eligibility, interventions, or outcome assessment., Study Design and Setting: Five high impact journals were searched for all RCTs published between July 2017 to June 2019. Primary outcome was a pooled estimate that quantified the difference between the treatment effects estimated by the two methods. Results are presented as ratio of odds ratios (ROR). Meta-regression was used to explore the association between level of trial protocol non-adherence and treatment effect. Sensitivity analyses compared results with varying within-study correlations and across various study characteristics., Results: Random-effects meta-analysis (N = 156) showed that PP estimates were on average 2% greater compared to the ITT estimates (ROR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04, P = 0.03). The divergence further increased with higher degree of protocol non-adherence. Sensitivity analyses reassured consistent results with various within-study correlations and across various study characteristics., Conclusion: There was evidence of larger treatment effect with PP compared to ITT analysis. PP analysis should not be used to assess the impact of protocol non-adherence in RCTs. Instead, in addition to ITT, investigators should consider randomization based casual method such as Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE)., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Cluster randomized trials are designed to evaluate interventions at the cluster or group level. When clusters are randomized but some clusters report no or non-analyzable data, intent-to-treat analysis, the gold standard for the analysis of randomized controlled trials, can be compromised. This article presents a very flexible statistical methodology for cluster randomized trials whose outcome is a cluster-level proportion (e.g. proportion from a cluster reporting an event) in the setting where clusters report non-analyzable data (which in general could be due to nonadherence, dropout, missingness, etc.). The approach is motivated by a previously published stratified randomized controlled trial called, "The Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT)," designed to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention on increasing minority recruitment into clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01911208)., Methods: The novel approach exploits the use of generalized estimating equations for cluster-level reports, such that all clusters randomized at baseline are able to be analyzed, and intervention effects are presented as risk ratios. Simulation studies under different outcome missingness scenarios and a variety of intra-cluster correlations are conducted. A comparative analysis of the method with imputation and per protocol approaches for RECRUIT is presented., Results: Simulation results show the novel approach produces unbiased and efficient estimates of the intervention effect that maintain the nominal type I error rate. Application to RECRUIT shows similar effect sizes when compared to the imputation and per protocol approach., Conclusion: The article demonstrates that an innovative bivariate generalized estimating equations framework allows one to implement an intent-to-treat analysis to obtain risk ratios or odds ratios, for a variety of cluster randomized designs.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to review and assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain., Study Design and Setting: This is a systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodological quality., Results: This review identified 2,215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n = 2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific etiology (n = 1,863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n = 947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time; however, most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n = 813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n = 778, 35.1%), and blinded assessors (n = 810, 36.6%), participants (n = 174, 7.9%), and therapists (n = 39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by the type of therapy., Conclusion: Most trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial., Methods: The authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach., Results: Median age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF., Conclusions: Catheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A clinical hold order by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the sponsor of a clinical trial is a measure to delay a proposed or to suspend an ongoing clinical investigation. The phase III clinical trial START serves as motivating data example to explore implications and potential statistical approaches for a trial continuing after a clinical hold is lifted. In spite of a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis introduced to account for the clinical hold by excluding patients potentially affected most by the clinical hold, results of the trial did not show a significant improvement of overall survival duration, and the question remains whether the negative result was an effect of the clinical hold. In this paper, we propose a multistate model incorporating the clinical hold as well as disease progression as intermediate events to investigate the impact of the clinical hold on the treatment effect. Moreover, we consider a simple counterfactual censoring approach as alternative strategy to the modified ITT analysis to deal with a clinical hold. Using a realistic simulation study informed by the START data and with a design based on our multistate model, we show that the modified ITT analysis used in the START trial was reasonable. However, the censoring approach will be shown to have some benefits in terms of power and flexibility., (© 2019 The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Colonoscopy performance varies among endoscopists, impairing the discovery of colorectal cancers and precursor lesions. We aimed to construct a real-time quality improvement system (ENDOANGEL) to monitor real-time withdrawal speed and colonoscopy withdrawal time and to remind endoscopists of blind spots caused by endoscope slipping. We also aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this system for improving adenoma yield of everyday colonoscopy., Methods: The ENDOANGEL system was developed using deep neural networks and perceptual hash algorithms. We recruited consecutive patients aged 18-75 years from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China who provided written informed consent. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using computer-generated random numbers and block randomisation (block size of four) to either colonoscopy with the ENDOANGEL system or unassisted colonoscopy (control). Endoscopists were not masked to the random assignment but analysts and patients were unaware of random assignments. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is the proportion of patients having one or more adenomas detected at colonoscopy. The primary analysis was done per protocol (ie, in all patients having colonoscopy done in accordance with the assigned intervention) and by intention to treat (ie, in all randomised patients). This trial is registered with http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1900021984., Findings: Between June 18, 2019, and Sept 6, 2019, 704 patients were randomly allocated colonoscopy with the ENDOANGEL system (n=355) or unassisted (control) colonoscopy (n=349). In the intention-to-treat population, ADR was significantly greater in the ENDOANGEL group than in the control group, with 58 (16%) of 355 patients allocated ENDOANGEL-assisted colonoscopy having one or more adenomas detected, compared with 27 (8%) of 349 allocated control colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·40-3·77; p=0·0010). In the per-protocol analysis, findings were similar, with 54 (17%) of 324 patients assigned ENDOANGEL-assisted colonoscopy and 26 (8%) of 318 patients assigned control colonoscopy having one or more adenomas detected (OR 2·18, 95% CI 1·31-3·62; p=0·0026). No adverse events were reported., Interpretation: The ENDOANGEL system significantly improved the adenoma yield during colonoscopy and seems to be effective and safe for use during routine colonoscopy., Funding: Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Hubei Province Major Science and Technology Innovation Project, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To describe patient characteristics by disease stage, resectability status and current treatment management after first diagnosis of IIIB to IV1c advanced (AM)/metastatic melanoma (MM)., Methods/patients: Multicentre, retrospective study based on data from medical charts of patients > 18 years at MM first diagnosis, visited by oncologists at 4 reference centres in Spain: Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón (Madrid), Hospital General de Valencia (Valencia), Clínica Universidad de Navarra (Pamplona), and Hospital Clínic (Barcelona)., Results: Metastatic non-visceral melanoma (IIIB, IIIC, IV M1a) was reported in 139 (48.6%) patients and 40.9% (n = 117) were diagnosed with IV-M1c disease. 160 (55.9%) metastases were resectable. Available therapies under clinical practice were used in 210 patients; 74 were treated under clinical trials (CT). Intention-to-cure surgery (47.6%) was the most common treatment at time of MM diagnosis. Systemic (45.1% overall) therapy included chemo-, targeted- and immunotherapy (19.6%, 14.3%, 8.4%, respectively). At time of data collection, 26 patients were still alive and 120 had progressed to IV-M1c. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly larger in IIIB patients, 28.9 m (25.2-32.7); the shortest for IV-M1c patients, 11.0 m (8.7-13.3)., Conclusions: Novel treatments are undoubtedly a major step forward in AM/MM, however these are often only available in the CT setting because early stages of development or country-specific regulations. Further prospective studies and multifactorial analysis should be performed to clearly identify possible clinical associations for outcome in Spanish patients with AM/MM.

Importance: Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options., Objective: To investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach., Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening., Interventions: Eligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test., Results: In total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: There was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The use of mobile technologies in medicine, or mHealth, holds promise to improve health worker (HW) performance, but evidence is mixed. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of text message reminders to HWs in outpatient health facilities (HFs) on quality of care for malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea in Malawi. After a baseline HF survey (2,360 patients) in January 2015, 105 HFs were randomized to three arms: 1) text messages to HWs on malaria case management; 2) text messages to HWs on malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea case management (latter two for children < 5 years); and 3) control arm (no messages). Messages were sent beginning April 2015 twice daily for 6 months, followed by an endline HF survey (2,536 patients) in November 2015. An intention-to-treat analysis with difference-in-differences binomial regression modeling was performed. The proportion of patients with uncomplicated malaria managed correctly increased from 42.8% to 59.6% in the control arm, from 43.7% to 55.8% in arm 1 (effect size -4.7%-points, 95% confidence interval (CI): -18.2, 8.9, P = 0.50) and from 30.2% to 50.9% in arm 2 (effect size 3.9%-points, 95% CI: -14.1, 22.0, P = 0.67). Prescription of first-line antibiotics to children < 5 years with clinically defined pneumonia increased in all arms, but decreased in arm 2 (effect size -4.1%-points, 95% CI: -42.0, 33.8, P = 0.83). Prescription of oral rehydration solution to children with diarrhea declined slightly in all arms. We found no significant improvements in malaria, pneumonia, or diarrhea treatment after HW reminders, illustrating the importance of rigorously testing new interventions before adoption.

The validity of clinical trial results is influenced by researchers' decisions regarding the management of missing data. Inadequate management of missing data has been identified as a significant source of bias that can result in an overestimation of drug efficacy. Transparency related to the management of missing data is essential to assess the strength of evidence reported in publications. In a subset of 17 randomised clinical trials for two new antidepressant medications, we present a case study in which we examined investigators' decisions regarding how to handle missing data and if their chosen method took into account, possible violations of analytic requirements that could affect results. The majority of trials (76%) concluded that there was a benefit of antidepressant treatment and in 94% the methodology for handling missing data was identifiable. Of these, 50% imputed data using the last observation carried forward and half used a mixed-effects model repeated measure approach. Most reports did not provide a rationale for the method used, and no trials described analyses regarding differences between completers and dropouts. Sensitivity analysis was inconsistently reported and correction for multiple comparisons was not uniformly applied. Lack of transparency for analytic choices related to handling of missing data testing was common in this subset of RCTs. Because management of missing data can directly influence the quality of study results, it is critical that journal editors develop and enforce standards for methodological transparency., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To systematically evaluate in five orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use intention to treat (ITT) analysis and to assess the methodological quality of the ITT analysis, and finally, to demonstrate in an academic way how outcomes can be affected when not implementing the ITT analysis., Material and Methods: A search of the database, Medline, was performed via PubMed for publication type 'randomized controlled trial' published for each journal between 1 January 2013 and 30 April 2017. The five orthodontic journals assessed were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research. Two independent reviewers assessed each RCT to determine whether the trial reported an ITT or not or if a per-protocol analysis was accomplished., Results: The initial search generated 137 possible trials. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 RCTs were included and assessed. Seventeen out of 90 RCTs (18.9%) either reported an ITT analysis in the text and/or supported the ITT by flow diagrams or tables. However, six RCTs applied and reported the ITT analysis correctly, while the majority performed a per-protocol analysis instead., Conclusions: Nearly all the trials that applied the ITT analysis incorrectly analysed the results using a per-protocol analysis, and thus, overestimating the results and/or having a reduced sample size which then could produce a diminished statistical power.

The application of the principle of the intention-to-treat (ITT) to the analysis of clinical trials is challenged in the presence of missing outcome data. The consequences of stopping an assigned treatment in a withdrawn subject are unknown. It is difficult to make a single assumption about missing mechanisms for all clinical trials because there are complicated reactions in the human body to drugs due to the presence of complex biological networks, leading to data missing randomly or non-randomly. Currently there is no statistical method that can tell whether a difference between two treatments in the ITT population of a randomized clinical trial with missing data is significant at a pre-specified level. Making no assumptions about the missing mechanisms, we propose a generalized complete-case (GCC) analysis based on the data of completers. An evaluation of the impact of missing data on the ITT analysis reveals that a statistically significant GCC result implies a significant treatment effect in the ITT population at a pre-specified significance level unless, relative to the comparator, the test drug is poisonous to the non-completers as documented in their medical records. Applications of the GCC analysis are illustrated using literature data, and its properties and limits are discussed.

Objectives: To describe the characteristics, and estimate the incidence, of trials included in systematic reviews deviating from the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle., Study Design and Setting: A 5% random sample of reviews were selected (Medline 2006-2010). Trials from reviews were classified based on the ITT: (1) ITT trials (trials reporting standard ITT analyses); (2) modified ITT (mITT) trials (modified ITT; trials deviating from standard ITT); or (3) no ITT trials., Results: Of 222 reviews, 81 (36%) included at least one mITT trial. Reviews with mITT trials were more likely to contain trials that used placebo, that investigated drugs, and that reported favorable results. The incidence of reviews with mITT trial ranged from 29% (17/58) to 48% (23/48). Of the 2,349 trials, 597 (25.4%) were classified as ITT trials, 323 (13.8%) as mITT trials, and 1,429 (60.8%) as no ITT trials. The mITT trials were more likely to have reported exclusions compared to studies classified as ITT trials and to have received funding., Conclusion: The reporting of the type of ITT may differ according to the clinical area and the type of intervention. Deviation from ITT in randomized controlled trials is a widespread phenomenon that significantly affects systematic reviews., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Industry funders can simply provide money or collaborate in trial design, analysis or reporting of clinical trials. Our aim was to assess the impact of industry collaboration on trial methodology and results of randomised controlled trials (RCT)., Methods: We searched PubMed for oncology RCTs published May 2013 to December 2015 in peer-reviewed journals with impact factor > 5 requiring reporting of funder role. Two authors extracted methodologic (primary end-point; blinding of the patient, clinician and outcomes assessor; and analysis) and outcome data. We used descriptive statistics and two-sided Fisher exact tests to compare characteristics of trials with collaboration, with industry funding only, and without industry funding., Results: We included 224 trials. Compared to those without industry funding, trials with collaboration used more placebo control (RR 3·59, 95% CI [1·88-6·83], p < 0001), intention-to-treat analysis (RR 1·32, 95% CI [1·04-1·67], p = 02), and blinding of patients (RR 3·05, 95% CI [1·71-5·44], p < 0001), clinicians (RR 3·36, 95% CI [1·83-6·16], p≤·001) and outcomes assessors (RR 3·03, 95% CI [1·57-5·83], p = 0002). They did not differ in use of overall survival as a primary end-point (RR 1·27 95% CI [0·72-2·24]) and were similarly likely to report positive results (RR 1·11 95% CI [0·85-1·46], p = 0.45). Studies with funding only did not differ from those without funding., Conclusions: Oncology RCTs with industry collaboration were more likely to use some high-quality methods than those without industry funding, with similar rates of positive results. Our findings suggest that collaboration is not associated with trial outcomes and that mandatory disclosure of funder roles may mitigate bias., Competing Interests: statement None declared., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this phase 2 multicenter trial, we evaluated the efficacy of the combination of bortezomib, dexamethasone, and rituximab (BDR) in 59 previously untreated symptomatic patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), most of which were of advanced age and with adverse prognostic factors. BDR consisted of a single 21-day cycle of bortezomib alone (1.3 mg/m 2 IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), followed by weekly IV bortezomib (1.6 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for 4 additional 35-day cycles, with IV dexamethasone (40 mg) and IV rituximab (375 mg/m 2 ) on cycles 2 and 5, for a total treatment duration of 23 weeks. On intent to treat, 85% responded (3% complete response, 7% very good partial response, 58% partial response). After a minimum follow-up of 6 years, median progression-free survival was 43 months and median duration of response for patients with at least partial response was 64.5 months. Overall survival at 7 years was 66%. No patient had developed secondary myelodysplasia, whereas transformation to high-grade lymphoma occurred in 3 patients who had received chemoimmunotherapy after BDR. Thus, BDR is a very active, fixed-duration, chemotherapy-free regimen, inducing durable responses and with a favorable long-term toxicity profile (www.ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00981708)., (© 2017 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial., Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock., Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock., Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555])., Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Background: Binge drinking is associated with numerous negative consequences. The prevalence and intensity of binge drinking is highest among young adults. This randomized trial tested the efficacy of a 12-week interactive text message intervention to reduce binge drinking up to 6 months after intervention completion among young adults., Methods and Findings: Young adult participants (18-25 y; n = 765) drinking above the low-risk limits (AUDIT-C score >3/4 women/men), but not seeking alcohol treatment, were enrolled from 4 Emergency Departments (EDs) in Pittsburgh, PA. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions in a 2:1:1 allocation ratio: SMS Assessments + Feedback (SA+F), SMS Assessments (SA), or control. For 12 weeks, SA+F participants received texts each Thursday querying weekend drinking plans and prompting drinking limit goal commitment and each Sunday querying weekend drinking quantity. SA+F participants received tailored feedback based on their text responses. To contrast the effects of SA+F with self-monitoring, SA participants received texts on Sundays querying drinking quantity, but did not receive alcohol-specific feedback. The control arm received standard care. Follow-up outcome data collected through web-based surveys were provided by 78% of participants at 3- months, 63% at 6-months and 55% at 9-months. Multiple imputation-derived, intent-to-treat models were used for primary analysis. At 9-months, participants in the SA+F group reported greater reductions in the number of binge drinking days than participants in the control group (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.69; 95% CI .59 to.79), lower binge drinking prevalence (odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98]), less drinks per drinking day (beta -.62; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.15) and lower alcohol-related injury prevalence (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.88). Participants in the SA group did not reduce drinking or alcohol-related injury relative to controls. Findings were similar using complete case analyses., Conclusions: An interactive text-message intervention was more effective than self-monitoring or controls in reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related injury prevalence up to 6 months after intervention completion. These findings, if replicated, suggest a scalable approach to help achieve sustained reductions in binge drinking and accompanying injuries among young adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01688245.

Motivated by a recent National Research Council study, we discuss three aspects of the analysis of clinical trials when participants prematurely discontinue treatments. First, we distinguish treatment discontinuation from missing outcome data. Data collection is often stopped after treatment discontinuation, but outcome data could be recorded on individuals after they discontinue treatment, as the National Research Council study recommends. Conversely, outcome data may be missing for individuals who do not discontinue treatment, as when there is loss to follow up or missed clinic visits. Missing outcome data is a standard missing data problem, but treatment discontinuation is better viewed as a form of noncompliance and treated using ideas from the causal literature on noncompliance. Second, the standard intention to treat estimand, the average effect of randomization to treatment, is compared with three alternative estimands for the intention to treat population: the average effect when individuals continue on the assigned treatment after discontinuation, the average effect when individuals take a control treatment after treatment discontinuation, and a summary measure of the effect of treatment prior to discontinuation. We argue that the latter choice of estimand has advantages and should receive more consideration. Third, we consider when follow-up measures after discontinuation are needed for valid measures of treatment effects. The answer depends on the choice of primary estimand and the plausibility of assumptions needed to address the missing data. Ideas are motivated and illustrated by a reanalysis of a past study of inhaled insulin treatments for diabetes, sponsored by Eli Lilly., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Missing outcome data are commonly encountered in randomized controlled trials and hence may need to be addressed in a meta-analysis of multiple trials. A common and simple approach to deal with missing data is to restrict analysis to individuals for whom the outcome was obtained (complete case analysis). However, estimated treatment effects from complete case analyses are potentially biased if informative missing data are ignored. We develop methods for estimating meta-analytic summary treatment effects for continuous outcomes in the presence of missing data for some of the individuals within the trials. We build on a method previously developed for binary outcomes, which quantifies the degree of departure from a missing at random assumption via the informative missingness odds ratio. Our new model quantifies the degree of departure from missing at random using either an informative missingness difference of means or an informative missingness ratio of means, both of which relate the mean value of the missing outcome data to that of the observed data. We propose estimating the treatment effects, adjusted for informative missingness, and their standard errors by a Taylor series approximation and by a Monte Carlo method. We apply the methodology to examples of both pairwise and network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials., (© 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: In randomized trials, the primary analysis should be consistent with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle and should address missing data appropriately to draw valid inferences. This review focuses on current practices relating to the ITT principle and methods to handle missing data in the major musculoskeletal journals., Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of randomized trials published in 2010 and 2011 in five musculoskeletal journals was performed., Results: We reviewed 91 trials: 38% performed a full ITT analysis (analyzing outcome data for all randomized participants) and 31% performed a partial ITT analysis (excluding participants with no follow-up data). The overall median dropout was 12%; 60% of trials had more than 10% dropouts, and 32% of trials had more than 20% dropouts. Among those that performed an ITT analysis, the majority adopted a form of single imputation; last observation carried forward was the designated approach in most cases. Mixed models for repeated measures and/or multiple imputations were limited to eight trials., Conclusion: It appears that many trials reporting missing data are inappropriately analyzed and may therefore be prone to biased estimates and invalid inferences., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)