Aspirin or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis after a Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients with fractures, but trials of its effectiveness as compared with aspirin are lacking. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we enrolled patients 18 years of age or older who had a fracture of an extremity (anywhere from hip to midfoot or shoulder to wrist) that had been treated operatively or who had any pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) at a dose of 30 mg twice daily or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg twice daily while they were in the hospital. After hospital discharge, the patients continued to receive thromboprophylaxis according to the clinical protocols of each hospital. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, and bleeding complications. RESULTS: A total of 12,211 patients were randomly assigned to receive aspirin (6101 patients) or low-molecular-weight heparin (6110 patients). Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 44.6±17.8 years, 0.7% had a history of venous thromboembolism, and 2.5% had a history of cancer. Patients received a mean of 8.8±10.6 in-hospital thromboprophylaxis doses and were prescribed a median 21-day supply of thromboprophylaxis at discharge. Death occurred in 47 patients (0.78%) in the aspirin group and in 45 patients (0.73%) in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.05 percentage points; 96.2% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.38; P<0.001 for a noninferiority margin of 0.75 percentage points). Deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 2.51% of patients in the aspirin group and 1.71% in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.80 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.31). The incidence of pulmonary embolism (1.49% in each group), bleeding complications, and other serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with extremity fractures that had been treated operatively or with any pelvic or acetabular fracture, thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing death and was associated with low incidences of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and low 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; PREVENT CLOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02984384.).

Sensitivity analysis for principal ignorability violation in estimating complier and noncomplier average causal effects.

An important strategy for identifying principal causal effects (popular estimands in settings with noncompliance) is to invoke the principal ignorability (PI) assumption. As PI is untestable, it is important to gauge how sensitive effect estimates are to its violation. We focus on this task for the common one-sided noncompliance setting where there are two principal strata, compliers and noncompliers. Under PI, compliers and noncompliers share the same outcome-mean-given-covariates function under the control condition. For sensitivity analysis, we allow this function to differ between compliers and noncompliers in several ways, indexed by an odds ratio, a generalized odds ratio, a mean ratio, or a standardized mean difference sensitivity parameter. We tailor sensitivity analysis techniques (with any sensitivity parameter choice) to several types of PI-based main analysis methods, including outcome regression, influence function (IF) based and weighting methods. We discuss range selection for the sensitivity parameter. We illustrate the sensitivity analyses with several outcome types from the JOBS II study. This application estimates nuisance functions parametrically - for simplicity and accessibility. In addition, we establish rate conditions on nonparametric nuisance estimation for IF-based estimators to be asymptotically normal - with a view to inform nonparametric inference.

Using Trial and Observational Data to Assess Effectiveness: Trial Emulation, Transportability, Benchmarking, and Joint Analysis.

Comparisons between randomized trial analyses and observational analyses that attempt to address similar research questions have generated many controversies in epidemiology and the social sciences. There has been little consensus on when such comparisons are reasonable, what their implications are for the validity of observational analyses, or whether trial and observational analyses can be integrated to address effectiveness questions. Here, we consider methods for using observational analyses to complement trial analyses when assessing treatment effectiveness. First, we review the framework for designing observational analyses that emulate target trials and present an evidence map of its recent applications. We then review approaches for estimating the average treatment effect in the target population underlying the emulation: using observational analyses of the emulation data alone; and using transportability analyses to extend inferences from a trial to the target population. We explain how comparing treatment effect estimates from the emulation against those from the trial can provide evidence on whether observational analyses can be trusted to deliver valid estimates of effectiveness - a process we refer to as benchmarking - and, in some cases, allow the joint analysis of the trial and observational data. We illustrate different approaches using a simplified example of a pragmatic trial and its emulation in registry data. We conclude that synthesizing trial and observational data - in transportability, benchmarking, or joint analyses - can leverage their complementary strengths to enhance learning about comparative effectiveness, through a process combining quantitative methods and epidemiological judgements.

A Bayesian nonparametric approach for evaluating the causal effect of treatment in randomized trials with semi-competing risks.

We develop a Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) approach to evaluate the causal effect of treatment in a randomized trial where a nonterminal event may be censored by a terminal event, but not vice versa (i.e., semi-competing risks). Based on the idea of principal stratification, we define a novel estimand for the causal effect of treatment on the nonterminal event. We introduce identification assumptions, indexed by a sensitivity parameter, and show how to draw inference using our BNP approach. We conduct simulation studies and illustrate our methodology using data from a brain cancer trial. The R code implementing our model and algorithm is available for download at https://github.com/YanxunXu/BaySemiCompeting.

Do superficial infections increase the risk of deep infections in tibial plateau and plafond fractures?

PURPOSE: Open reduction internal fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures may be complicated by deep surgical site infection requiring operative debridement and antibiotic therapy. The management of superficial surgical site infection is controversial. We sought to determine whether superficial infection is associated with an increased risk of deep infection requiring surgical debridement after fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from the VANCO trial, which included 980 adult patients with a tibial plateau or pilon fracture at elevated risk of infection who underwent open reduction internal fixation with plates and screws with or without intrawound vancomycin powder. An association of superficial surgical site infection with deep surgical site infection requiring debridement surgery and antibiotics was explored after matching on risk factors for deep surgical site infection. RESULTS: Of the 980 patients, we observed 30 superficial infections (3.1%) and 76 deep infections (7.8%). Among patients who developed a superficial infection, the unadjusted incidence of developing a deep infection within 90 days was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-24.2%). However, after a 3:1 match on infection risk factors, the 90-day marginal probability of a deep surgical site infection after sustaining a superficial infection was 6.0% (95% CI - 6.5-18.5%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Deep infection after superficial infection is uncommon following operative fixation of tibial plateau and pilon fractures. Increased risk of subsequent deep infection attributable to superficial infection was inconclusive in these data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Randomized Trials With Repeatedly Measured Outcomes: Handling Irregular and Potentially Informative Assessment Times.

Randomized trials are often designed to collect outcomes at fixed points in time after randomization. In practice, the number and timing of outcome assessments can vary among participants (i.e., irregular assessment). In fact, the timing of assessments may be associated with the outcome of interest (i.e., informative assessment). For example, in a trial evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for major depressive disorder, not only did the timings of outcome assessments vary among participants but symptom scores were associated with assessment frequency. This type of informative observation requires appropriate statistical analysis. Although analytic methods have been developed, they are rarely used. In this article, we review the literature on irregular assessments with a view toward developing recommendations for analyzing trials with irregular and potentially informative assessment times. We show how the choice of analytic approach hinges on assumptions about the relationship between the assessment and outcome processes. We argue that irregular assessment should be treated with the same care as missing data, and we propose that trialists adopt strategies to minimize the extent of irregularity; describe the extent of irregularity in assessment times; make their assumptions about the relationships between assessment times and outcomes explicit; adopt analytic techniques that are appropriate to their assumptions; and assess the sensitivity of trial results to their assumptions.

Global sensitivity analysis of randomized trials with nonmonotone missing binary outcomes: Application to studies of substance use disorders.

In this paper, we present a method for conducting global sensitivity analysis of randomized trials in which binary outcomes are scheduled to be collected on participants at prespecified points in time after randomization and these outcomes may be missing in a nonmonotone fashion. We introduce a class of missing data assumptions, indexed by sensitivity parameters, which are anchored around the missing not at random assumption introduced by Robins (Statistics in Medicine, 1997). For each assumption in the class, we establish that the joint distribution of the outcomes is identifiable from the distribution of the observed data. Our estimation procedure uses the plug-in principle, where the distribution of the observed data is estimated using random forests. We establish n$\sqrt {n}$ asymptotic properties for our estimation procedure. We illustrate our methodology in the context of a randomized trial designed to evaluate a new approach to reducing substance use, assessed by testing urine samples twice weekly, among patients entering outpatient addiction treatment. We evaluate the finite sample properties of our method in a realistic simulation study. Our methods have been implemented in an R package entitled slabm.

Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.

Time is of the essence in evaluating potential drugs and biologics for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. There are currently 876 randomized clinical trials (phase 2 and 3) of treatments for COVID-19 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method with potential to improve precision and reduce the required sample size for a substantial number of these trials. Though covariate adjustment is recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, it is underutilized, especially for the types of outcomes (binary, ordinal, and time-to-event) that are common in COVID-19 trials. To demonstrate the potential value added by covariate adjustment in this context, we simulated two-arm, randomized trials comparing a hypothetical COVID-19 treatment versus standard of care, where the primary outcome is binary, ordinal, or time-to-event. Our simulated distributions are derived from two sources: longitudinal data on over 500 patients hospitalized at Weill Cornell Medicine New York Presbyterian Hospital and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention preliminary description of 2449 cases. In simulated trials with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 1000 participants, we found substantial precision gains from using covariate adjustment-equivalent to 4-18% reductions in the required sample size to achieve a desired power. This was the case for a variety of estimands (targets of inference). From these simulations, we conclude that covariate adjustment is a low-risk, high-reward approach to streamlining COVID-19 treatment trials. We provide an R package and practical recommendations for implementation.

Discussion on "Causal mediation of semicompeting risks" by Yen-Tsung Huang.

Huang proposes a method for assessing the impact of a point treatment on mortality either directly or mediated by occurrence of a nonterminal health event, based on data from a prospective cohort study in which the occurrence of the nonterminal health event may be preemptied by death but not vice versa. The author uses a causal mediation framework to formally define causal quantities known as natural (in)direct effects. The novelty consists of adapting these concepts to a continuous-time modeling framework based on counting processes. In an effort to posit "scientifically interpretable estimands," statistical and causal assumptions are introduced for identification. In this commentary, we argue that these assumptions are not only difficult to interpret and justify, but are also likely violated in the hepatitis B motivating example and other survival/time to event settings as well.

Global identifiability of latent class models with applications to diagnostic test accuracy studies: A Gröbner basis approach.

Identifiability of statistical models is a fundamental regularity condition that is required for valid statistical inference. Investigation of model identifiability is mathematically challenging for complex models such as latent class models. Jones et al. used Goodman's technique to investigate the identifiability of latent class models with applications to diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard test. The tool they used was based on examining the singularity of the Jacobian or the Fisher information matrix, in order to obtain insights into local identifiability (ie, there exists a neighborhood of a parameter such that no other parameter in the neighborhood leads to the same probability distribution as the parameter). In this paper, we investigate a stronger condition: global identifiability (ie, no two parameters in the parameter space give rise to the same probability distribution), by introducing a powerful mathematical tool from computational algebra: the Gröbner basis. With several existing well-known examples, we argue that the Gröbner basis method is easy to implement and powerful to study global identifiability of latent class models, and is an attractive alternative to the information matrix analysis by Rothenberg and the Jacobian analysis by Goodman and Jones et al.

idem: An R Package for Inferences in Clinical Trials with Death and Missingness.

In randomized controlled trials of seriously ill patients, death is common and often defined as the primary endpoint. Increasingly, non-mortality outcomes such as functional outcomes are co-primary or secondary endpoints. Functional outcomes are not defined for patients who die, referred to as "truncation due to death", and among survivors, functional outcomes are often unobserved due to missed clinic visits or loss to follow-up. It is well known that if the functional outcomes "truncated due to death" or missing are handled inappropriately, treatment effect estimation can be biased. In this paper, we describe the package idem that implements a procedure for comparing treatments that is based on a composite endpoint of mortality and the functional outcome among survivors. Among survivors, the procedure incorporates a missing data imputation procedure with a sensitivity analysis strategy. A web-based graphical user interface is provided in the idem package to facilitate users conducting the proposed analysis in an interactive and user-friendly manner. We demonstrate idem using data from a recent trial of sedation interruption among mechanically ventilated patients.

Bayesian inference for a principal stratum estimand to assess the treatment effect in a subgroup characterized by postrandomization event occurrence.

The treatment effect in subgroups of patients is often of interest in randomized controlled clinical trials, as this may provide useful information on how to treat which patients best. When a specific subgroup is characterized by the absence of certain events that happen postrandomization, a naive analysis on the subset of patients without these events may be misleading. The principal stratification framework allows one to define an appropriate causal estimand in such settings. Statistical inference for the principal stratum estimand hinges on scientifically justified assumptions, which can be included with Bayesian methods through prior distributions. Our motivating example is a large randomized placebo-controlled trial of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. The primary objective of this trial was to demonstrate the efficacy of siponimod relative to placebo in delaying disability progression for the whole study population. However, the treatment effect in the subgroup of patients who would not relapse during the trial is relevant from both a scientific and patient perspective. Assessing this subgroup treatment effect is challenging as there is strong evidence that siponimod reduces relapses. We describe in detail the scientific question of interest, the principal stratum estimand, the corresponding analysis method for binary endpoints, and sensitivity analyses. Although our work is motivated by a randomized clinical trial, the approach has broader appeal and could be adapted for observational studies.

A constructive critique of the draft ICH E9 Addendum.

In this article, I review the key elements of the proposed International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9 Addendum, present a constructive critique, and provide recommendations of how it can be improved. To highlight ideas, I present a case study involving a confirmatory trial for a chronic pain medication.

Global sensitivity analysis for repeated measures studies with informative drop-out: A semi-parametric approach.

In practice, both testable and untestable assumptions are generally required to draw inference about the mean outcome measured at the final scheduled visit in a repeated measures study with drop-out. Scharfstein et al. (2014) proposed a sensitivity analysis methodology to determine the robustness of conclusions within a class of untestable assumptions. In their approach, the untestable and testable assumptions were guaranteed to be compatible; their testable assumptions were based on a fully parametric model for the distribution of the observable data. While convenient, these parametric assumptions have proven especially restrictive in empirical research. Here, we relax their distributional assumptions and provide a more flexible, semi-parametric approach. We illustrate our proposal in the context of a randomized trial for evaluating a treatment of schizoaffective disorder.

Inference in randomized trials with death and missingness.

In randomized studies involving severely ill patients, functional outcomes are often unobserved due to missed clinic visits, premature withdrawal, or death. It is well known that if these unobserved functional outcomes are not handled properly, biased treatment comparisons can be produced. In this article, we propose a procedure for comparing treatments that is based on a composite endpoint that combines information on both the functional outcome and survival. We further propose a missing data imputation scheme and sensitivity analysis strategy to handle the unobserved functional outcomes not due to death. Illustrations of the proposed method are given by analyzing data from a recent non-small cell lung cancer clinical trial and a recent trial of sedation interruption among mechanically ventilated patients.

Estimation of treatment effects in matched-pair cluster randomized trials by calibrating covariate imbalance between clusters.

We address estimation of intervention effects in experimental designs in which (a) interventions are assigned at the cluster level; (b) clusters are selected to form pairs, matched on observed characteristics; and (c) intervention is assigned to one cluster at random within each pair. One goal of policy interest is to estimate the average outcome if all clusters in all pairs are assigned control versus if all clusters in all pairs are assigned to intervention. In such designs, inference that ignores individual level covariates can be imprecise because cluster-level assignment can leave substantial imbalance in the covariate distribution between experimental arms within each pair. However, most existing methods that adjust for covariates have estimands that are not of policy interest. We propose a methodology that explicitly balances the observed covariates among clusters in a pair, and retains the original estimand of interest. We demonstrate our approach through the evaluation of the Guided Care program.

To excise or not: impact of MelaFind on German dermatologists' decisions to biopsy atypical lesions.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the biopsy sensitivity to melanoma of dermatologists in Germany and the impact of MelaFind® on their decisions to biopsy melanomas. DESIGN: Randomized two-armed online reader study presenting case information, clinical/dermatoscopic images of pigmented skin lesions and MelaFind results (Arm 2). METHODS: Each participant was asked to review 130 pigmented skin lesions. Biopsy decisions of dermatologists without MelaFind versus MelaFind and dermatologists without MelaFind versus dermatologists with MelaFind were compared. RESULTS: Dermatologists without MelaFind had average sensitivity to melanoma of 69.5 % and average specificity of 55.9 %. MelaFind had greater sensitivity than dermatologists alone (96.9 % vs. 69.5 %, one-sided p < 0.00001) and lower specificity (9.2 % vs. 55.9 %, one-sided p < 0.00001). Dermatologists with MelaFind had higher sensitivity than those without MelaFind (78 % vs. 69.5 %, one-sided p < 0.00001) and a lower specificity (45.8 % vs. 55.9 %, one-sided p < 0.00001). The number of dermatologists detecting over 90 % of melanomas increased from 3 of 101 without MelaFind to 22 of 101 with MelaFind (p = 0.00006) while specificity remained relatively equivalent (23 % vs. 21 %, p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The MelaFind information, when incorporated into the final biopsy decision, can improve biopsy sensitivity with modest effect on biopsy specificity.

Predictors of urine toxicology and other biologic specimen missingness in randomized trials of substance use disorders.

BACKGROUND: High levels of missing outcome data for biologically confirmed substance use (BCSU) threaten the validity of substance use disorder (SUD) clinical trials. Underlying attributes of clinical trials could explain BCSU missingness and identify targets for improved trial design. METHODS: We reviewed 21 clinical trials funded by the NIDA National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) and published from 2005 to 2018 that examined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions for SUD. We used configurational analysis-a Boolean algebra approach that identifies an attribute or combination of attributes predictive of an outcome-to identify trial design features and participant characteristics associated with high levels of BCSU missingness. Associations were identified by configuration complexity, consistency, coverage, and robustness. We limited results using a consistency threshold of 0.75 and summarized model fit using the product of consistency and coverage. RESULTS: For trial design features, the final solution consisted of two pathways: psychosocial treatment as a trial intervention OR larger trial arm size (complexity=2, consistency=0.79, coverage=0.93, robustness score=0.71). For participant characteristics, the final solution consisted of two pathways: interventions targeting individuals with poly- or nonspecific substance use OR younger age (complexity=2, consistency=0.75, coverage=0.86, robustness score=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial treatments, larger trial arm size, interventions targeting individuals with poly- or nonspecific substance use, and younger age among trial participants were predictive of missing BCSU data in SUD clinical trials. Interventions to mitigate missing data that focus on these attributes may reduce threats to validity and improve utility of SUD clinical trials.