Symptomatic benefits of testosterone treatment in patient subgroups: a systematic review, individual participant data meta-analysis, and aggregate data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone replacement therapy is known to improve sexual function in men younger than 40 years with pathological hypogonadism. However, the extent to which testosterone alleviates sexual dysfunction in older men and men with obesity is unclear, despite the fact that testosterone is being increasingly prescribed to these patient populations. We aimed to evaluate whether subgroups of men with low testosterone derive any symptomatic benefit from testosterone treatment. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate characteristics associated with symptomatic benefit of testosterone treatment versus placebo in men aged 18 years and older with a baseline serum total testosterone concentration of less than 12 nmol/L. We searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries for reports published in English between Jan 1, 1992, and Aug 27, 2018. Anonymised individual participant data were requested from the investigators of all identified trials. Primary (cardiovascular) outcomes from this analysis have been published previously. In this report, we present the secondary outcomes of sexual function, quality of life, and psychological outcomes at 12 months. We did a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis with a random-effects linear regression model, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating individual participant data with aggregated data from studies that did not provide individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. FINDINGS: 9871 citations were identified through database searches. After exclusion of duplicates and publications not meeting inclusion criteria, 225 full texts were assessed for inclusion, of which 109 publications reporting 35 primary studies (with a total 5601 participants) were included. Of these, 17 trials provided individual participant data (3431 participants; median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 3281 [97%] of 3380 aged ≥40 years) Compared with placebo, testosterone treatment increased 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) total score (mean difference 5·52 [95% CI 3·95-7·10]; τ2=1·17; n=1412) and IIEF-15 erectile function subscore (2·14 [1·40-2·89]; τ2=0·64; n=1436), reaching the minimal clinically important difference for mild erectile dysfunction. These effects were not found to be dependent on participant age, obesity, presence of diabetes, or baseline serum total testosterone. However, absolute IIEF-15 scores reached during testosterone treatment were subject to thresholds in patient age and baseline serum total testosterone. Testosterone significantly improved Aging Males' Symptoms score, and some 12-item or 36-item Short Form Survey quality of life subscores compared with placebo, but it did not significantly improve psychological symptoms (measured by Beck Depression Inventory). INTERPRETATION: In men aged 40 years or older with baseline serum testosterone of less than 12 nmol/L, short-to-medium-term testosterone treatment could provide clinically meaningful treatment for mild erectile dysfunction, irrespective of patient age, obesity, or degree of low testosterone. However, due to more severe baseline symptoms, the absolute level of sexual function reached during testosterone treatment might be lower in older men and men with obesity. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in men during testosterone treatment: an individual patient and aggregate data meta-analysis.

Background: Testosterone is the standard treatment for male hypogonadism, but there is uncertainty about its cardiovascular safety due to inconsistent findings. We aimed to provide the most extensive individual participant dataset (IPD) of testosterone trials available, to analyse subtypes of all cardiovascular events observed during treatment, and to investigate the effect of incorporating data from trials that did not provide IPD. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including IPD. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects for literature from 1992 onwards (date of search, Aug 27, 2018). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) men aged 18 years and older with a screening testosterone concentration of 12 nmol/L (350 ng/dL) or less; (2) the intervention of interest was treatment with any testosterone formulation, dose frequency, and route of administration, for a minimum duration of 3 months; (3) a comparator of placebo treatment; and (4) studies assessing the pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes of interest. Details of study design, interventions, participants, and outcome measures were extracted from published articles and anonymised IPD was requested from investigators of all identified trials. Primary outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events at any time during follow-up. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We did a one-stage meta-analysis using IPD, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating IPD with data from studies not providing IPD. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. Findings: 9871 citations were identified through database searches and after exclusion of duplicates and of irrelevant citations, 225 study reports were retrieved for full-text screening. 116 studies were subsequently excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria in terms of study design and characteristics of intervention, and 35 primary studies (5601 participants, mean age 65 years, [SD 11]) reported in 109 peer-reviewed publications were deemed suitable for inclusion. Of these, 17 studies (49%) provided IPD (3431 participants, mean duration 9·5 months) from nine different countries while 18 did not provide IPD data. Risk of bias was judged to be low in most IPD studies (71%). Fewer deaths occurred with testosterone treatment (six [0·4%] of 1621) than placebo (12 [0·8%] of 1537) without significant differences between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·17-1·24]; p=0·13). Cardiovascular risk was similar during testosterone treatment (120 [7·5%] of 1601 events) and placebo treatment (110 [7·2%] of 1519 events; OR 1·07 [95% CI 0·81-1·42]; p=0·62). Frequently occurring cardiovascular events included arrhythmia (52 of 166 vs 47 of 176), coronary heart disease (33 of 166 vs 33 of 176), heart failure (22 of 166 vs 28 of 176), and myocardial infarction (10 of 166 vs 16 of 176). Overall, patient age (interaction 0·97 [99% CI 0·92-1·03]; p=0·17), baseline testosterone (interaction 0·97 [0·82-1·15]; p=0·69), smoking status (interaction 1·68 [0·41-6·88]; p=0.35), or diabetes status (interaction 2·08 [0·89-4·82; p=0·025) were not associated with cardiovascular risk. Interpretation: We found no evidence that testosterone increased short-term to medium-term cardiovascular risks in men with hypogonadism, but there is a paucity of data evaluating its long-term safety. Long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials.

Rationale: Low and slow patient enrollment remains a barrier to critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Behavioral economic insights suggest that nudges may address some enrollment challenges.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel preconsent survey consisting of nudges on critical care RCT enrollment.Methods: We conducted an RCT in 10 intensive care units (ICUs) among surrogate decision-makers (SDMs). The novel multicomponent behavioral nudge survey was administered immediately before soliciting SDMs' informed consent for their patients' participation in a sham trial of two mechanical ventilation weaning approaches in acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate for the sham trial. Secondary outcomes included undue and unjust inducements. We also explored SDM and patient predictors of enrollment using multivariate regression.Results: Among 182 SDMs, 93 were randomized to receive the intervention survey and 89 to receive standard informed consent. There was no statistically significant difference in enrollment rates between the intervention (29%) and standard consent (34%) groups (percentage difference, 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9% to 18%; P = 0.50). There was no evidence of undue or unjust inducement. White SDMs were more likely to enroll the patient compared with non-white SDMs (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 12.2; P = 0.03). SDMs who perceived a higher risk of participation were less likely to enroll the patient (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.71; P < 0.001).Conclusions: A preconsent behavioral nudge survey among SDMs of patients with acute respiratory failure in the ICU did not increase enrollment rates for a sham RCT compared with standard informed consent procedures.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284359).

Data monitoring committees: Promoting best practices to address emerging challenges.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. METHODS: An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities.

Inclusion of women in clinical trials.

There is increasing concern among many in the medical arena about the extent to which the effects of treatment, either good or bad, apply to specific subgroups of individuals. Women comprise one of the most frequently considered 'subgroups' of patients. In the 1980s, much political attention was focused on concerns about equity in the research enterprise. In this paper, we briefly describe the statutory approaches to achieving equity in research, beginning with The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. We go on to describe clinical, methodological and political factors affecting these discussions. We conclude that the controversy over the inclusion of women in clinical trials probably stems, in part, from theoretical concerns about gender differences in treatment effects and, in part, by legitimate fears of exposing fetuses to investigational drugs. However, we believe that the broader issue centres on biological factors, possibly defined by genes or gene expression, that may directly or indirectly modify the effect of specific treatments on specific individuals.A growing concern of physicians, regulators, healthcare policy makers and patients is the extent to which the effects of treatment, both good and bad, apply to specific subgroups. Do results of clinical trials apply consistently and equally across all clinically meaningful subclasses of patients enrolled in the studies? Can the results of those studies be extrapolated to patients or types of patients who did not participate in the original research? Reliable data on these issues are rarely available at the time of drug approval and are more difficult to generate once the drug is on the market and readily available.

Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3.

Premarketing studies of drugs, although large enough to demonstrate efficacy and detect common adverse events, cannot reliably detect an increased incidence of rare adverse events or events with significant latency. For most drugs, only about 500 to 3000 participants are studied, for relatively short durations, before a drug is marketed. Systems for assessment of postmarketing adverse events include spontaneous reports, computerized claims or medical record databases, and formal postmarketing studies. We briefly review the strengths and limitations of each. Postmarketing surveillance is essential for developing a full understanding of the balance between benefits and adverse effects. More work is needed in analysis of data from spontaneous reports of adverse effects and automated databases, design of ad hoc studies, and design of economically feasible large randomized studies.