Intent-to-treat analysis of cluster randomized trials when clusters report unidentifiable outcome proportions.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials are designed to evaluate interventions at the cluster or group level. When clusters are randomized but some clusters report no or non-analyzable data, intent-to-treat analysis, the gold standard for the analysis of randomized controlled trials, can be compromised. This article presents a very flexible statistical methodology for cluster randomized trials whose outcome is a cluster-level proportion (e.g. proportion from a cluster reporting an event) in the setting where clusters report non-analyzable data (which in general could be due to nonadherence, dropout, missingness, etc.). The approach is motivated by a previously published stratified randomized controlled trial called, "The Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT)," designed to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention on increasing minority recruitment into clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01911208). METHODS: The novel approach exploits the use of generalized estimating equations for cluster-level reports, such that all clusters randomized at baseline are able to be analyzed, and intervention effects are presented as risk ratios. Simulation studies under different outcome missingness scenarios and a variety of intra-cluster correlations are conducted. A comparative analysis of the method with imputation and per protocol approaches for RECRUIT is presented. RESULTS: Simulation results show the novel approach produces unbiased and efficient estimates of the intervention effect that maintain the nominal type I error rate. Application to RECRUIT shows similar effect sizes when compared to the imputation and per protocol approach. CONCLUSION: The article demonstrates that an innovative bivariate generalized estimating equations framework allows one to implement an intent-to-treat analysis to obtain risk ratios or odds ratios, for a variety of cluster randomized designs.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC).

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.

Multistate modeling of clinical hold in randomized clinical trials.

A clinical hold order by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the sponsor of a clinical trial is a measure to delay a proposed or to suspend an ongoing clinical investigation. The phase III clinical trial START serves as motivating data example to explore implications and potential statistical approaches for a trial continuing after a clinical hold is lifted. In spite of a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis introduced to account for the clinical hold by excluding patients potentially affected most by the clinical hold, results of the trial did not show a significant improvement of overall survival duration, and the question remains whether the negative result was an effect of the clinical hold. In this paper, we propose a multistate model incorporating the clinical hold as well as disease progression as intermediate events to investigate the impact of the clinical hold on the treatment effect. Moreover, we consider a simple counterfactual censoring approach as alternative strategy to the modified ITT analysis to deal with a clinical hold. Using a realistic simulation study informed by the START data and with a design based on our multistate model, we show that the modified ITT analysis used in the START trial was reasonable. However, the censoring approach will be shown to have some benefits in terms of power and flexibility.

BDR in newly diagnosed patients with WM: final analysis of a phase 2 study after a minimum follow-up of 6 years.

In this phase 2 multicenter trial, we evaluated the efficacy of the combination of bortezomib, dexamethasone, and rituximab (BDR) in 59 previously untreated symptomatic patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), most of which were of advanced age and with adverse prognostic factors. BDR consisted of a single 21-day cycle of bortezomib alone (1.3 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), followed by weekly IV bortezomib (1.6 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for 4 additional 35-day cycles, with IV dexamethasone (40 mg) and IV rituximab (375 mg/m2) on cycles 2 and 5, for a total treatment duration of 23 weeks. On intent to treat, 85% responded (3% complete response, 7% very good partial response, 58% partial response). After a minimum follow-up of 6 years, median progression-free survival was 43 months and median duration of response for patients with at least partial response was 64.5 months. Overall survival at 7 years was 66%. No patient had developed secondary myelodysplasia, whereas transformation to high-grade lymphoma occurred in 3 patients who had received chemoimmunotherapy after BDR. Thus, BDR is a very active, fixed-duration, chemotherapy-free regimen, inducing durable responses and with a favorable long-term toxicity profile (www.ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00981708).

Intention to treat (ITT) analysis as reported in orthodontic randomized controlled trials-evaluations of methodology and recommendations for the accurate use of ITT analysis and handling dropouts.

Objective: To systematically evaluate in five orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use intention to treat (ITT) analysis and to assess the methodological quality of the ITT analysis, and finally, to demonstrate in an academic way how outcomes can be affected when not implementing the ITT analysis. Material and methods: A search of the database, Medline, was performed via PubMed for publication type 'randomized controlled trial' published for each journal between 1 January 2013 and 30 April 2017. The five orthodontic journals assessed were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research. Two independent reviewers assessed each RCT to determine whether the trial reported an ITT or not or if a per-protocol analysis was accomplished. Results: The initial search generated 137 possible trials. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 RCTs were included and assessed. Seventeen out of 90 RCTs (18.9%) either reported an ITT analysis in the text and/or supported the ITT by flow diagrams or tables. However, six RCTs applied and reported the ITT analysis correctly, while the majority performed a per-protocol analysis instead. Conclusions: Nearly all the trials that applied the ITT analysis incorrectly analysed the results using a per-protocol analysis, and thus, overestimating the results and/or having a reduced sample size which then could produce a diminished statistical power.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Development of Shock Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: The HYPRESS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]). Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis.

Missing outcome data are commonly encountered in randomized controlled trials and hence may need to be addressed in a meta-analysis of multiple trials. A common and simple approach to deal with missing data is to restrict analysis to individuals for whom the outcome was obtained (complete case analysis). However, estimated treatment effects from complete case analyses are potentially biased if informative missing data are ignored. We develop methods for estimating meta-analytic summary treatment effects for continuous outcomes in the presence of missing data for some of the individuals within the trials. We build on a method previously developed for binary outcomes, which quantifies the degree of departure from a missing at random assumption via the informative missingness odds ratio. Our new model quantifies the degree of departure from missing at random using either an informative missingness difference of means or an informative missingness ratio of means, both of which relate the mean value of the missing outcome data to that of the observed data. We propose estimating the treatment effects, adjusted for informative missingness, and their standard errors by a Taylor series approximation and by a Monte Carlo method. We apply the methodology to examples of both pairwise and network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials.

Intention-to-treat analysis with treatment discontinuation and missing data in clinical trials.

Motivated by a recent National Research Council study, we discuss three aspects of the analysis of clinical trials when participants prematurely discontinue treatments. First, we distinguish treatment discontinuation from missing outcome data. Data collection is often stopped after treatment discontinuation, but outcome data could be recorded on individuals after they discontinue treatment, as the National Research Council study recommends. Conversely, outcome data may be missing for individuals who do not discontinue treatment, as when there is loss to follow up or missed clinic visits. Missing outcome data is a standard missing data problem, but treatment discontinuation is better viewed as a form of noncompliance and treated using ideas from the causal literature on noncompliance. Second, the standard intention to treat estimand, the average effect of randomization to treatment, is compared with three alternative estimands for the intention to treat population: the average effect when individuals continue on the assigned treatment after discontinuation, the average effect when individuals take a control treatment after treatment discontinuation, and a summary measure of the effect of treatment prior to discontinuation. We argue that the latter choice of estimand has advantages and should receive more consideration. Third, we consider when follow-up measures after discontinuation are needed for valid measures of treatment effects. The answer depends on the choice of primary estimand and the plausibility of assumptions needed to address the missing data. Ideas are motivated and illustrated by a reanalysis of a past study of inhaled insulin treatments for diabetes, sponsored by Eli Lilly.

A randomized controlled comparison of integrative cognitive-affective therapy (ICAT) and enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-E) for bulimia nervosa.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to compare a new psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa (BN), integrative cognitive-affective therapy (ICAT), with an established treatment, 'enhanced' cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-E). METHOD: Eighty adults with symptoms of BN were randomized to ICAT or CBT-E for 21 sessions over 19 weeks. Bulimic symptoms, measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE), were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment (EOT) and at the 4-month follow-up. Treatment outcome, measured by binge eating frequency, purging frequency, global eating disorder severity, emotion regulation, self-oriented cognition, depression, anxiety and self-esteem, was determined using generalized estimating equations (GEEs), logistic regression and a general linear model (intent-to-treat). RESULTS: Both treatments were associated with significant improvement in bulimic symptoms and in all measures of outcome, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two conditions at EOT or follow-up. Intent-to-treat abstinence rates for ICAT (37.5% at EOT, 32.5% at follow-up) and CBT-E (22.5% at both EOT and follow-up) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: ICAT was associated with significant improvements in bulimic and associated symptoms that did not differ from those obtained with CBT-E. This initial randomized controlled trial of a new individual psychotherapy for BN suggests that targeting emotion and self-oriented cognition in the context of nutritional rehabilitation may be efficacious and worthy of further study.

Effects of motive-oriented therapeutic relationship in a ten-session general psychiatric treatment of borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Motive-oriented therapeutic relationship (MOTR) was postulated to be a particularly helpful therapeutic ingredient in the early treatment phase of patients with personality disorders, in particular with borderline personality disorder (BPD). The present randomized controlled study using an add-on design is the first study to test this assumption in a 10-session general psychiatric treatment with patients presenting with BPD on symptom reduction and therapeutic alliance. METHODS: A total of 85 patients were randomized. They were either allocated to a manual-based short variant of the general psychiatric management (GPM) treatment (in 10 sessions) or to the same treatment where MOTR was deliberately added to the treatment. Treatment attrition and integrity analyses yielded satisfactory results. RESULTS: The results of the intent-to-treat analyses suggested a global efficacy of MOTR, in the sense of an additional reduction of general problems, i.e. symptoms, interpersonal and social problems (F1, 73 = 7.25, p < 0.05). However, they also showed that MOTR did not yield an additional reduction of specific borderline symptoms. It was also shown that a stronger therapeutic alliance, as assessed by the therapist, developed in MOTR treatments compared to GPM (Z55 = 0.99, p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adding MOTR to psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatments of BPD is promising. Moreover, the findings shed additional light on the perspective of shortening treatments for patients presenting with BPD.

Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis requires all randomised individuals to be included in the analysis in the groups to which they were randomised. However, there is confusion about how ITT analysis should be performed in the presence of missing outcome data. PURPOSES: To explain, justify, and illustrate an ITT analysis strategy for randomised trials with incomplete outcome data. METHODS: We consider several methods of analysis and compare their underlying assumptions, plausibility, and numbers of individuals included. We illustrate the ITT analysis strategy using data from the UK700 trial in the management of severe mental illness. RESULTS: Depending on the assumptions made about the missing data, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals may be less valid than methods that do not include all randomised individuals. Furthermore, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals are essentially equivalent to methods that do not include all randomised individuals. LIMITATIONS: This work assumes that the aim of analysis is to obtain an accurate estimate of the difference in outcome between randomised groups and not to obtain a conservative estimate with bias against the experimental intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials should employ an ITT analysis strategy, comprising a design that attempts to follow up all randomised individuals, a main analysis that is valid under a stated plausible assumption about the missing data, and sensitivity analyses that include all randomised individuals in order to explore the impact of departures from the assumption underlying the main analysis. Following this strategy recognises the extra uncertainty arising from missing outcomes and increases the incentive for researchers to minimise the extent of missing data.

Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research.

BACKGROUND: The intention-to-treat comparison is the primary, if not the only, analytic approach of many randomized clinical trials. PURPOSE: To review the shortcomings of intention-to-treat analyses, and of 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses as commonly implemented, with an emphasis on problems that are especially relevant for comparative effectiveness research. METHODS AND RESULTS: In placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, intention-to-treat analyses underestimate the treatment effect and are therefore nonconservative for both safety trials and noninferiority trials. In randomized clinical trials with an active comparator, intention-to-treat estimates can overestimate a treatment's effect in the presence of differential adherence. In either case, there is no guarantee that an intention-to-treat analysis estimates the clinical effectiveness of treatment. Inverse probability weighting, g-estimation, and instrumental variable estimation can reduce the bias introduced by nonadherence and loss to follow-up in 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses. LIMITATIONS: These analyse require untestable assumptions, a dose-response model, and time-varying data on confounders and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that all randomized clinical trials with substantial lack of adherence or loss to follow-up are analyzed using different methods. These include an intention-to-treat analysis to estimate the effect of assigned treatment and 'as treated' and 'per protocol' analyses to estimate the effect of treatment after appropriate adjustment via inverse probability weighting or g-estimation.

How to use marginal structural models in randomized trials to estimate the natural direct and indirect effects of therapies mediated by causal intermediates.

BACKGROUND: Although intention-to-treat analysis is a standard approach, additional supplemental analyses are often required to evaluate the biological relationship among interventions, intermediates, and outcomes. Therefore, we need to evaluate whether the effect of an intervention on a particular outcome is mediated by a hypothesized intermediate variable. PURPOSE: To evaluate the size of the direct effect in the total effect, we applied the marginal structural model to estimate the average natural direct and indirect effects in a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT). Method The average natural direct effect is defined as the difference in the probability of a counterfactual outcome between the experimental and control arms, with the intermediate set to what it would have been, had the intervention been a control treatment. We considered two marginal structural models to estimate the average natural direct and indirect effects introduced by VanderWeele (Epidemiology 2009) and applied them in a large-scale RCT - the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J trial) - that compared angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers in high-risk hypertensive patients. RESULTS: There were no strong blood pressure-independent or dependent effects; however, a systolic blood pressure reduction of about 1.9 mmHg suppressed all events. Compared to the blood pressure-independent effects of calcium channel blockers, those of angiotensin receptor blockers contributed positively to cardiovascular and cardiac events, but negatively to cerebrovascular events. LIMITATIONS: There is a particular condition for estimating the average natural direct effect. It is impossible to check whether this condition is satisfied with the available data. CONCLUSION: We estimated the average natural direct and indirect effects through the achieved systolic blood pressure in the CASE-J trial. This first application of estimating the average natural effects in an RCT can be useful for obtaining an in-depth understanding of the results and further development of similar interventions.

Motivational Interviewing delivered by existing prison staff: a randomized controlled study of effectiveness on substance use after release.

A sample of 296 drug-using inmates in 14 Swedish prisons was randomized during 2004-2006 into three intervention groups; Motivational Interviewing delivered by counselors with workshop-only training, or by counselors with workshop training followed by peer group supervision, and controls. Drug and alcohol use was measured by the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) at intake and at 10 months after release. Complete data from 114 clients were analyzed by a stepwise regression analysis. All three groups reduced alcohol and drug use. Limitations in the study are discussed and future research is suggested. The study is financed by grants from the Research Committee of the National Prison and Probation Administration.

Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake meta-analysis and compare treatment effects estimated by the intention-to-treat (ITT) method and per-protocol (PP) method in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PP excludes trial participants who are non-adherent to trial protocol in terms of eligibility, interventions, or outcome assessment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Five high impact journals were searched for all RCTs published between July 2017 to June 2019. Primary outcome was a pooled estimate that quantified the difference between the treatment effects estimated by the two methods. Results are presented as ratio of odds ratios (ROR). Meta-regression was used to explore the association between level of trial protocol non-adherence and treatment effect. Sensitivity analyses compared results with varying within-study correlations and across various study characteristics. RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis (N = 156) showed that PP estimates were on average 2% greater compared to the ITT estimates (ROR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04, P = 0.03). The divergence further increased with higher degree of protocol non-adherence. Sensitivity analyses reassured consistent results with various within-study correlations and across various study characteristics. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of larger treatment effect with PP compared to ITT analysis. PP analysis should not be used to assess the impact of protocol non-adherence in RCTs. Instead, in addition to ITT, investigators should consider randomization based casual method such as Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE).

A systematic review highlights the need to improve the quality and applicability of trials of physical therapy interventions for low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to review and assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodological quality. RESULTS: This review identified 2,215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n = 2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific etiology (n = 1,863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n = 947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time; however, most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n = 813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n = 778, 35.1%), and blinded assessors (n = 810, 36.6%), participants (n = 174, 7.9%), and therapists (n = 39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by the type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Most trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain.

Detection of colorectal adenomas with a real-time computer-aided system (ENDOANGEL): a randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy performance varies among endoscopists, impairing the discovery of colorectal cancers and precursor lesions. We aimed to construct a real-time quality improvement system (ENDOANGEL) to monitor real-time withdrawal speed and colonoscopy withdrawal time and to remind endoscopists of blind spots caused by endoscope slipping. We also aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this system for improving adenoma yield of everyday colonoscopy. METHODS: The ENDOANGEL system was developed using deep neural networks and perceptual hash algorithms. We recruited consecutive patients aged 18-75 years from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China who provided written informed consent. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using computer-generated random numbers and block randomisation (block size of four) to either colonoscopy with the ENDOANGEL system or unassisted colonoscopy (control). Endoscopists were not masked to the random assignment but analysts and patients were unaware of random assignments. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is the proportion of patients having one or more adenomas detected at colonoscopy. The primary analysis was done per protocol (ie, in all patients having colonoscopy done in accordance with the assigned intervention) and by intention to treat (ie, in all randomised patients). This trial is registered with http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1900021984. FINDINGS: Between June 18, 2019, and Sept 6, 2019, 704 patients were randomly allocated colonoscopy with the ENDOANGEL system (n=355) or unassisted (control) colonoscopy (n=349). In the intention-to-treat population, ADR was significantly greater in the ENDOANGEL group than in the control group, with 58 (16%) of 355 patients allocated ENDOANGEL-assisted colonoscopy having one or more adenomas detected, compared with 27 (8%) of 349 allocated control colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·40-3·77; p=0·0010). In the per-protocol analysis, findings were similar, with 54 (17%) of 324 patients assigned ENDOANGEL-assisted colonoscopy and 26 (8%) of 318 patients assigned control colonoscopy having one or more adenomas detected (OR 2·18, 95% CI 1·31-3·62; p=0·0026). No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The ENDOANGEL system significantly improved the adenoma yield during colonoscopy and seems to be effective and safe for use during routine colonoscopy. FUNDING: Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Hubei Province Major Science and Technology Innovation Project, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: The CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial. METHODS: The authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Median age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).

Missing data in biologic oncology products.

The intent-to-treat principle requires analyses according to the treatment groups to which patients were randomized and that patients be followed to the occurrence of the endpoint or the end of study. This provides unbiased comparisons with valid p values. For many trials the limitations of the data will not be known until the data are analyzed. In this article, the loss-to-follow-up with respect to the intent-to-treat principle on the most important efficacy endpoints was evaluated for clinical trials of anticancer biologic products submitted to the FDA from August 2005 to October 2008. We provide recommendations in light of the results.

Intention-to-treat analyses in behavioral medicine randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat (ITT) is an analytic approach where all randomized participants are included in analyses and in their originally assigned condition, regardless of adherence or protocol deviation. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to determine whether reporting and correct use of ITT in behavioral medicine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in behavioral journals has improved in recent years. METHOD: ITT and related analytic conventions were examined in behavioral medicine RCTs (N = 87) published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Health Psychology, and the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in the years 2000-2003 and then again in 2006-2007. Logistic regression analyses tested whether ten indicators associated with ITT were being used increasingly over time. Also tested was whether reporting and correct use of ITT improved following the adoption of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials (CONSORT) statement. RESULTS: Results revealed that less than half of RCTs (42%) used ITT analyses correctly. Over time, reporting of sample size estimation and primary outcome as well as use of the term "ITT" to describe analyses improved; however, correct implementation of ITT did not. Improvement was not specifically attributable to CONSORT adoption. CONCLUSION: Investigators' claims of using ITT analyses have increased over time, but correct use of ITT has not.