Search

Contains fulltext : 283289.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Estimands aim to incorporate intercurrent events in design, data collection and estimation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Our aim was to understand what estimands may correspond to efficacy analyses commonly employed in clinical trials conducted before publication of ICH E9(R1). We re-analysed six clinical trials evaluating a new anti-depression treatment. We selected the following analysis methods-ANCOVA on complete cases, following last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation and following multiple imputation; mixed-models for repeated measurements without imputation (MMRM), MMRM following LOCF imputation and following jump-to-reference imputation; and pattern-mixture mixed models. We included a principal stratum analysis based on the predicted subset of the study population who would not discontinue due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. We translated each analysis into the implicitly targeted estimand, and formulated corresponding clinical questions. We could map six estimands to analysis methods. The same analysis method could be mapped to more than one estimand. The major difference between estimands was the strategy for intercurrent events, with other attributes mostly the same across mapped estimands. The quantitative differences in MADRS10 population-level summaries between the estimands were 4-8 points. Not all six estimands had a clinically meaningful interpretation. Only a few analyses would target the same estimand, hence only few could be used as sensitivity analyses. The fact that an analysis could estimate different estimands emphasises the importance of prospectively defining the estimands targeting the primary objective of a trial. The fact that an estimand can be targeted by different analyses emphasises the importance of prespecifying precisely the estimator for the targeted estimand.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Objectives: Lumbar interbody fusion with cages is performed to provide vertebral stability, restore alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used. Silicon nitride (Si3N4) is an alternative material with good osteointegrative properties. This study was designed to assess if Si3N4 cages perform similar to PEEK. Methods: A non-inferiority double-blind multicenter RCT was designed. Patients presenting with chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain were included. Single- or double-level instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an oblique PEEK or Si3N4 cage was performed. The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The non-inferiority margin for the RMDQ was 2.6 points on a scale of 24. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), SF-36 Physical Function, patient and surgeon Likert scores, radiographic evaluations for subsidence, segmental motion, and fusion. Follow-up was planned at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months. Results: Ninety-two patients were randomized ( i.e. 48 to PEEK and 44 to Si3N4). Both groups showed good clinical improvements on the RMDQ scores of up to 5-8 points during follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical and radiographic outcomes. Mean operative time and blood loss were statistically significantly higher for the Si3N4 cohort. Although not statistically significant, there was a higher incidence of complications and revisions associated with the Si3N4 cage. Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Si3N4 was non-inferior to PEEK.

BACKGROUND: During lumbar spinal fusion, spacer cages are implanted to provide vertebral stability, restore sagittal alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used by most spine surgeons. Silicon nitride (Si(3)N(4)) is a less well-known alternative although it was first used as a spacer in lumbar fusion over 30 years ago. The present study was designed to see if Si(3)N(4) cages would perform similarly to PEEK in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A non-inferiority multicenter 100-patient study was designed where both the observer and patient were blinded. Single- or double-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation using an oblique PEEK or Si(3)N(4) cage was performed. The primary non-inferiority outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary measures included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for back and leg pain, SF-36 Physical and Mental Function indices, patient and surgeon Likert scores on perceived recovery, and X-ray and CT radiological evaluations for subsidence, segmental motion, and fusion. Follow-up evaluations occurred at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: After exclusions for protocol violations and canceled surgeries, 92 patients were randomized (i.e., 48 for PEEK and 44 for Si(3)N(4)). There were no differences in baseline demographics, pre-operative disabilities, or pain scores between the groups. Both treatment arms showed significant improvements in disability, pain, and recovery scores. No significant differences were observed for subsidence, segmental motion, or fusion. For the primary outcome (i.e., RMDQ scores), the non-inferiority of Si(3)N(4) compared to PEEK could not be established using the original protocol criteria. However, the comparison was undermined by larger than anticipated patient fallout coupled with higher than expected RMDQ score standard deviations. A post hoc analysis coupled with a more extensive review of the literature was conducted which resulted in the selection of a revised clinically justified non-inferiority margin; and using this method, the non-inferiority of Si(3)N(4) was affirmed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the use of either PEEK or Si(3)N(4) cages is safe and effective for patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion for chronic degenerative disc disease.

Contains fulltext : 225506.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Background An estimand defines the target of estimation for a clinical trial through specification of the treatment, target population, variable, population-level summary and of the strategies for intercurrent events. A carefully defined estimand aligns the clinical trial design and analysis with the scientific question of interest and adequately accounts for so-called intercurrent events. The ICH E9(R1) addendum suggests five estimand strategies. We evaluated to what extent current practice in drug development and regulatory assessment fits in the estimand framework. Methods We systematically evaluated what estimands, especially what strategies for intercurrent events are advised in European Medicines Agency disease guidelines, used in sponsors’ trials and additionally requested by the European Medicines Agency in assessment dossiers. We selected four therapeutic areas: nervous system, oncology, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. For each, we evaluated all disease guidelines with approved drugs, the dossiers of the most recently approved drugs matching the guidelines and corresponding regulatory questions. Results Strategies for intercurrent events were present in 18 (53%) of 34 guidelines, in all 34 sponsor documentations and in 15 (44%) of 34 sets of regulatory questions. Treatment policy was advised in 13 (38%) guidelines and was applied in 9 corresponding sponsor documentations. Of these 9, it was the sole strategy in 4 cases and accompanied by another strategy in 5 cases. Hypothetical strategy was not advised in guidelines. However, it was the leading strategy applied in 25 (74%) sponsor documentations. Composite strategy was advised in 3 (9%) guidelines and applied accompanied by another strategy in 2 corresponding sponsor documentations. While on treatment strategy was not advised in guidelines, but was applied in 2 sponsor documentations. Principal stratum strategy was advised in 2 guidelines but not applied in corresponding sponsor documentations. Of the regulatory questions, treatment policy was present in 2 cases (6%), hypothetical in 6 cases (18%), composite in 6 cases (18%) and while on treatment in 1 case (3%). Conclusions Estimand attributes are present in guidelines, sponsor documentations and regulatory questions, but not described as estimands. Treatment policy was most often advised in guidelines, but hypothetical was the leading strategy applied in sponsor documentations. Thus, results indicate not a full concordance between the regulatory target of estimation and what is actually estimated. The lack of concordance was mostly due to limitations in collection of intercurrent events data to enable a treatment policy strategy. There is, therefore, a need to better define estimands at the design stage and throughout the applications dossiers and assessment reports.

Objectives In medical research, covariates (e.g., exposure and confounder variables) are often measured with error. While it is well accepted that this introduces bias and imprecision in exposure-outcome relations, it is unclear to what extent such issues are currently considered in research practice. The objective was to study common practices regarding covariate measurement error via a systematic review of general medicine and epidemiology literature. Study Design and Setting Original research published in 2016 in 12 high impact journals was full-text searched for phrases relating to measurement error. Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized. Results Two hundred and forty-seven (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error. Conclusions Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals. Our systematic review highlights the need for increased awareness about the possible impact of covariate measurement error. Additionally, guidance on the use of measurement error correction methods is necessary.

Background The ASTERIX project developed a number of novel methods suited to study small populations. The objective of this exercise was to evaluate the applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in small populations, using real world drug development programmes as reported in European Public Assessment Reports. Methods The applicability and added value of thirteen novel methods developed within ASTERIX were evaluated using data from 26 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) for orphan medicinal products, representative of rare medical conditions as predefined through six clusters. The novel methods included were ‘innovative trial designs’ (six methods), ‘level of evidence’ (one method), ‘study endpoints and statistical analysis’ (four methods), and ‘meta-analysis’ (two methods) and they were selected from the methods developed within ASTERIX based on their novelty; methods that discussed already available and applied strategies were not included for the purpose of this validation exercise. Pre-requisites for application in a study were systematized for each method, and for each main study in the selected EPARs it was assessed if all pre-requisites were met. This direct applicability using the actual study design was firstly assessed. Secondary, applicability and added value were explored allowing changes to study objectives and design, but without deviating from the context of the drug development plan. We evaluated whether differences in applicability and added value could be observed between the six predefined condition clusters. Results and discussion Direct applicability of novel methods appeared to be limited to specific selected cases. The applicability and added value of novel methods increased substantially when changes to the study setting within the context of drug development were allowed. In this setting, novel methods for extrapolation, sample size re-assessment, multi-armed trials, optimal sequential design for small sample sizes, Bayesian sample size re-estimation, dynamic borrowing through power priors and fall-back tests for co-primary endpoints showed most promise - applicable in more than 40% of evaluated EPARs in all clusters. Most of the novel methods were applicable to conditions in the cluster of chronic and progressive conditions, involving multiple systems/organs. Relatively fewer methods were applicable to acute conditions with single episodes. For the chronic clusters, Goal Attainment Scaling was found to be particularly applicable as opposed to other (non-chronic) clusters. Conclusion Novel methods as developed in ASTERIX can improve drug development programs. Achieving optimal added value of these novel methods often requires consideration of the entire drug development program, rather than reconsideration of methods for a specific trial. The novel methods tested were mostly applicable in chronic conditions, and acute conditions with recurrent episodes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0925-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In medical research, covariates (e.g. exposure and confounder variables) are often measured with error. While it is well accepted that this introduces bias and imprecision in exposure-outcome relations, it is unclear to what extent such issues are currently considered in research practice. The objective was to study common practices regarding covariate measurement error via a systematic review of general medicine and epidemiology literature. Original research published in 2016 in 12 high impact journals was full-text searched for phrases relating to measurement error. Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized. 247 (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error. Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals. Our systematic review highlights the need for increased awareness about the possible impact of covariate measurement error. Additionally, guidance on the use of measurement error correction methods is necessary.