Search

Background: Treatment of venous thromboembolism in children is based on data obtained in adults with little direct documentation of its efficacy and safety in children. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus standard anticoagulants in children with venous thromboembolism. Methods: In a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised study, children (aged 0–17 years) attending 107 paediatric hospitals in 28 countries with documented acute venous thromboembolism who had started heparinisation were assigned (2:1) to bodyweight-adjusted rivaroxaban (tablets or suspension) in a 20-mg equivalent dose or standard anticoagulants (heparin or switched to vitamin K antagonist). Randomisation was stratified by age and venous thromboembolism site. The main treatment period was 3 months (1 month in children <2 years of age with catheter-related venous thromboembolism). The primary efficacy outcome, symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (assessed by intention-to-treat), and the principal safety outcome, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (assessed in participants who received ≥1 dose), were centrally assessed by investigators who were unaware of treatment assignment. Repeat imaging was obtained at the end of the main treatment period and compared with baseline imaging tests. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02234843 and has been completed. Findings: From Nov 14, 2014, to Sept 28, 2018, 500 (96%) of the 520 children screened for eligibility were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 91 days (IQR 87–95) in children who had a study treatment period of 3 months (n=463) and 31 days (IQR 29–35) in children who had a study treatment period of 1 month (n=37), symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in four (1%) of 335 children receiving rivaroxaban and five (3%) of 165 receiving standard anticoagulants (hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·11–1·41). Repeat imaging showed an improved eff

BACKGROUND Randomised trial protocols may incorporate interim analyses, with the potential to stop the study for futility if early data show insufficient promise of a treatment benefit. Previously, we have shown that this approach will theoretically lead to mis-estimation of the treatment effect. We now wished to ascertain the importance of this phenomenon in practice. METHODS We reviewed the methods and results in a set of trials that had stopped for futility, identified through an extensive literature search. We recorded clinical areas, interventions, study design, outcomes, trial setting, sponsorship, planned and actual treatment effects, sample sizes; power; and if there was a data safety monitoring board, or a published protocol. We identified: if interim analyses were pre-specified, and how many analyses actually occurred; what pre-specified criteria might define futility; if a futility analysis formed the basis for stopping; who made the decision to stop; and the conditional power of each study, i.e. the probability of statistically significant results if the study were to continue to its complete sample size. RESULTS We identified 52 eligible trials, covering many clinical areas. Most trials had multiple centres, tested drugs, and 40% were industry sponsored. There were 75% where at least one interim analysis was planned a priori; a majority had only one interim analysis, typically with about half the target total sample size. A majority of trials did not pre-define a stopping rule, and a variety of reasons were given for stopping. Few studies calculated and reported low conditional power to justify the early stop. When conditional power could be calculated, it was typically low, especially under the current trend hypothesis. However, under the original design hypothesis, a few studies had relatively high conditional power. Data collection often continued after the interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS Although other factors will typically be involved, we conclude t