Prognostic and predictive markers of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease in a clinical trial and long-term observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To explore prognostic and predictive markers of SSc-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) outcomes in a phase 3 trial (focuSSced) and prognostic markers in a real-world cohort (SMART). METHODS: The focuSSced SSc-ILD subgroup included 68 of 106 placebo-treated and 68 of 104 tocilizumab-treated patients. The SMART cohort included 505 patients with SSc-ILD. Linear mixed-effect models were used to identify factors associated with change in forced vital capacity (FVC). Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox regression were used for time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: In placebo-treated focuSSced patients, sex was a significant prognostic factor for FVC decline; males had increased risk for absolute decline ≥10% in percent-predicted FVC (ppFVC) and 0.22% faster weekly FVC decline than females (P = 0.0001). FVC was 9.8% lower in patients with CRP >6 mg/ml vs those with CRP ≤6 mg/ml (P = 0.0059). Tocilizumab reduced the risk for ≥10% decline in ppFVC in patients who were male, had earlier disease (<2 years duration), had IL-6 levels <10 pg/ml, or had anti-topoisomerase antibodies (ATA). In the SMART cohort, prognostic factors for ppFVC <70% were male sex, ATA, and low baseline FVC. Males had 3.3% lower FVC 1 year after disease onset (P < 0.001) and 0.6% faster yearly decline (P = 0.03) than females. CONCLUSION: Prognostic markers in SSc-ILD were similar between focuSSced and SMART. Male sex and inflammatory markers were associated with lower FVC but IL-6 ≥10 pg/ml was not predictive of response to tocilizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02453256.

Perils of Randomized Controlled Trial Survival Extrapolation Assuming Treatment Effect Waning: Why the Distinction Between Marginal and Conditional Estimates Matters.

OBJECTIVES: A long-term, constant, protective treatment effect is a strong assumption when extrapolating survival beyond clinical trial follow-up; hence, sensitivity to treatment effect waning is commonly assessed for economic evaluations. Forcing a hazard ratio (HR) to 1 does not necessarily estimate loss of individual-level treatment effect accurately because of HR selection bias. A simulation study was designed to explore the behavior of marginal HRs under a waning conditional (individual-level) treatment effect and demonstrate bias in forcing a marginal HR to 1 when the estimand is "survival difference with individual-level waning". METHODS: Data were simulated under 4 parameter combinations (varying prognostic strength of heterogeneity and treatment effect). Time-varying marginal HRs were estimated in scenarios where the true conditional HR attenuated to 1. Restricted mean survival time differences, estimated having constrained the marginal HR to 1, were compared with true values to assess bias induced by marginal constraints. RESULTS: Under loss of conditional treatment effect, the marginal HR took a value >1 because of covariate imbalances. Constraining this value to 1 lead to restricted mean survival time difference bias of up to 0.8 years (57% increase). Inflation of effect size estimates also increased with the magnitude of initial protective treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between survival extrapolations assuming marginal versus conditional treatment effect waning. When a marginal HR is constrained to 1 to assess efficacy under individual-level treatment effect waning, the survival benefits associated with the new treatment will be overestimated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be underestimated.

A systematic review of simulation studies which compare existing statistical methods to account for non-compliance in randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Non-compliance is a common challenge for researchers and may reduce the power of an intention-to-treat analysis. Whilst a per protocol approach attempts to deal with this issue, it can result in biased estimates. Several methods to resolve this issue have been identified in previous reviews, but there is limited evidence supporting their use. This review aimed to identify simulation studies which compare such methods, assess the extent to which certain methods have been investigated and determine their performance under various scenarios. METHODS: A systematic search of several electronic databases including MEDLINE and Scopus was carried out from conception to 30th November 2022. Included papers were published in a peer-reviewed journal, readily available in the English language and focused on comparing relevant methods in a superiority randomised controlled trial under a simulation study. Articles were screened using these criteria and a predetermined extraction form used to identify relevant information. A quality assessment appraised the risk of bias in individual studies. Extracted data was synthesised using tables, figures and a narrative summary. Both screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of 2325 papers identified, 267 full texts were screened and 17 studies finally included. Twelve methods were identified across papers. Instrumental variable methods were commonly considered, but many authors found them to be biased in some settings. Non-compliance was generally assumed to be all-or-nothing and only occurring in the intervention group, although some methods considered it as time-varying. Simulation studies commonly varied the level and type of non-compliance and factors such as effect size and strength of confounding. The quality of papers was generally good, although some lacked detail and justification. Therefore, their conclusions were deemed to be less reliable. CONCLUSIONS: It is common for papers to consider instrumental variable methods but more studies are needed that consider G-methods and compare a wide range of methods in realistic scenarios. It is difficult to make conclusions about the best method to deal with non-compliance due to a limited body of evidence and the difficulty in combining results from independent simulation studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022370910.

An evaluation of the Herscovici classification for fractures of the medial malleolus.

BACKGROUND: Despite its use in the literature, the application of the Herscovici classification system for medial malleolus fractures has not been evaluated. METHODS: We aimed to determine the reliability and accuracy of the Herscovici classification. The blinded radiographs of 130 patients were independently classified by four orthopaedic trauma surgeons. We held a consensus meeting where observers agreed on a final classification and this served as our reference standard. We used weighted kappa (κ) coefficients of agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-four fractures (18%) were deemed unclassifiable. The classification system demonstrated moderate inter-observer reliability (κ=0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.68) but substantial reproducibility (κ=0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.79). Accuracy, when compared with the reference standard, was κ=0.54 (95% CI 0.40-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The obliquity of the fracture line, and fracture extension, created difficulty in classification in 26% of cases. 18% of our cases could not be classified by majority decision. Our results emphasise the challenges faced in classifying these fractures. Future work should focus on refining the Herscovici classification.