Improved mortality analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for emergency medical diseases using Bayesian time-to-event models with active comparators.

Emergency medical diseases (EMDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. A time-to-death analysis is needed to accurately identify the risks and describe the pattern of an EMD because the mortality rate can peak early and then decline. Dose-ranging Phase II clinical trials are essential for developing new therapies for EMDs. However, most dose-finding trials do not analyze mortality as a time-to-event endpoint. We propose three Bayesian dose-response time-to-event models for a secondary mortality analysis of a clinical trial: a two-group (active treatment vs control) model, a three-parameter sigmoid EMAX model, and a hierarchical EMAX model. The study also incorporates one specific active treatment as an active comparator in constructing three new models. We evaluated the performance of these six models and a very popular independent model using simulated data motivated by a randomized Phase II clinical trial focused on identifying the most effective hyperbaric oxygen dose to achieve favorable functional outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. The results show that the three-group, EMAX, and EMAX model with an active comparator produce the smallest averaged mean squared errors and smallest mean absolute biases. We provide a new approach for time-to-event analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for EMDs. The EMAX model with an active comparator can provide valuable insights into the mortality analysis of new EMDs or other conditions that have changing risks over time. The restricted mean survival time, a function of the model's hazards, is recommended for displaying treatment effects for EMD research.

Intensive Blood-Pressure Lowering in Patients with Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to guide the choice of a target for the systolic blood-pressure level when treating acute hypertensive response in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible participants with intracerebral hemorrhage (volume, <60 cm(3)) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 5 or more (on a scale from 3 to 15, with lower scores indicating worse condition) to a systolic blood-pressure target of 110 to 139 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg (standard treatment) in order to test the superiority of intensive reduction of systolic blood pressure to standard reduction; intravenous nicardipine to lower blood pressure was administered within 4.5 hours after symptom onset. The primary outcome was death or disability (modified Rankin scale score of 4 to 6, on a scale ranging from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 3 months after randomization, as ascertained by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment assignments. RESULTS: Among 1000 participants with a mean (±SD) systolic blood pressure of 200.6±27.0 mm Hg at baseline, 500 were assigned to intensive treatment and 500 to standard treatment. The mean age of the patients was 61.9 years, and 56.2% were Asian. Enrollment was stopped because of futility after a prespecified interim analysis. The primary outcome of death or disability was observed in 38.7% of the participants (186 of 481) in the intensive-treatment group and in 37.7% (181 of 480) in the standard-treatment group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.27; analysis was adjusted for age, initial GCS score, and presence or absence of intraventricular hemorrhage). Serious adverse events occurring within 72 hours after randomization that were considered by the site investigator to be related to treatment were reported in 1.6% of the patients in the intensive-treatment group and in 1.2% of those in the standard-treatment group. The rate of renal adverse events within 7 days after randomization was significantly higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (9.0% vs. 4.0%, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of participants with intracerebral hemorrhage to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of 110 to 139 mm Hg did not result in a lower rate of death or disability than standard reduction to a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center; ATACH-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01176565 .).

Statistical assessment of the prognostic and the predictive value of biomarkers-A biomarker assessment framework with applications to traumatic brain injury biomarker studies.

Studies that investigate the performance of prognostic and predictive biomarkers are commonplace in medicine. Evaluating the performance of biomarkers is challenging in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other conditions when both the time factor (i.e. time from injury to biomarker measurement) and different levels or doses of treatments are in play. Such factors need to be accounted for when assessing the biomarker's performance in relation to a clinical outcome. The Hyperbaric Oxygen in Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) trial, a phase II randomized control clinical trial seeks to determine the dose of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating severe TBI that has the highest likelihood of demonstrating efficacy in a phase III trial. Hyperbaric Oxygen in Brain Injury Treatment will study up to 200 participants with severe TBI. This paper discusses the statistical approaches to assess the prognostic and predictive performance of the biomarkers studied in this trial, where prognosis refers to the association between a biomarker and the clinical outcome while the predictiveness refers to the ability of the biomarker to identify patient subgroups that benefit from therapy. Analyses based on initial biomarker levels accounting for different levels of HBOT and other baseline clinical characteristics, and analyses of longitudinal changes in biomarker levels are discussed from a statistical point of view. Methods for combining biomarkers that are of complementary nature are also considered and the relevant algorithms are illustrated in detail along with an extensive simulation study that assesses the performance of the statistical methods. Even though the discussed approaches are motivated by the HOBIT trial, their applications are broader. They can be applied in studies assessing the predictiveness and prognostic ability of biomarkers in relation to a well-defined therapeutic intervention and clinical outcome.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Resolute Onyx Stent for Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Comparison With Stenting Versus Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis Trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (sICAD) is estimated to cause 10% of strokes annually in the United States. However, treatment remains a challenge with several different stenting options studied in the past with unfavorable results. OBJECTIVE: To report the 30-day stroke and/or death rate associated with intracranial stent placement for sICAD using Resolute Onyx Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent (RO-ZES) and provide a comparison with the results of Stenting Versus Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases across 8 stroke centers were used to identify adult patients treated with RO-ZES for sICAD between January 2019 and December 2021. Primary end point was composite of 30-day stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and/or death. Propensity score matching was performed using age, hypertension, lipid disorder, cigarette smoking, and symptomatic target vessel to create a matched group for comparison between RO-ZES and the SAMMPRIS medical management and treatment groups (SAMMPRIS percutaneous angioplasty and stenting [S-PTAS]). RESULTS: A total of 132 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis (mean age: 64.2 years). Mean severity of stenosis was 81.4% (±11.4%). A total of 4 (3.03%) stroke and/or deaths were reported within 30 days of treatment in the RO-ZES group compared with 6.6% in the SAMMPRIS medical management group (OR [odds ratio] 2.26, 95% CI 0.7-9.56, P = .22) and 15.6% in the S-PTAS group (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.04-23.4, P < .001). Propensity score match analysis of 115 patients in each group demonstrated 30-day stroke and/or death rate of 2.6% in the RO-ZES group and 15.6% in the S-PTAS group (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.92-37.54, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with RO-ZES had a relatively low 30-day stroke and/or death rate compared with the S-PTAS group. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RO-ZES for the treatment of sICAD.

International Practice Variability in Treatment of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Prior research suggests substantial between-center differences in functional outcome following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). One hypothesis is that these differences are due to practice variability. To characterize practice variability, we sent a survey to 230 centers, of which 145 (63%) responded. Survey respondents indicated that an estimated 65% of ruptured aneurysms were treated endovascularly. Sixty-five percent of aneurysms were treated within 24 h of symptom onset, 18% within 24-48 h, and eight percent within 48-72 h. Centers in the United States (US) and Europe (EU) treat aneurysms more often endovascularly (72% and 70% vs. 51%, respectively, US vs. other p < 0.001, and EU vs. other p < 0.01) and more often within 24 h (77% and 64% vs. 46%, respectively, US vs. other p < 0.001, EU vs. other p < 0.01) compared to other centers. Most centers aim for euvolemia (96%) by administrating intravenous fluids to 0 (53%) or +500 mL/day (41%) net fluid balance. Induced hypertension is more often used in US centers (100%) than in EU (87%, p < 0.05) and other centers (81%, p < 0.05), and endovascular therapies for cerebral vasospasm are used more often in US centers than in other centers (91% and 60%, respectively, p < 0.05). We observed significant practice variability in aSAH treatment worldwide. Future comparative effectiveness research studies are needed to investigate how practice variation leads to differences in functional outcome.