A Survey for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis Treatment: Ankle Arthrodesis Versus Ankle Arthroplasty.

With promising technological advances, ankle arthroplasty has become an alternative to arthrodesis, traditionally the gold standard, for treating end-stage ankle arthritis. We collected knowledge and perceptions on both procedures to determine the need for a patient decision aid for these patients by administering a cross-sectional survey to 103 orthopaedic surgeons. Respondents were predominantly male and 41 to 50 years old. Half of those who stated that they do not perform arthroplasty said this was because they do not have adequate training. Additionally, certain variables were associated with the surgeon's choice of intervention: patient gender, age, body mass index, postoperative activity level, employment type, perceived risk of infection, neurovascular injury or wound complication, risk of developing or pre-existing adjacent arthritis, deformity, malalignment, bone loss or abnormal bone quality, number of prior ankle operations, cause of arthritis, and desire for motion preservation. The majority agreed that they always incorporate patient preferences into their decisions and that a decision aid would be beneficial. This survey revealed that several patient characteristics are influential in the surgeon's preference for either arthroplasty or arthrodesis for end-stage ankle arthritis. Because the majority of surgeons incorporate patient preferences in their decisions and report that a decision aid would be beneficial for informed decision-making in this clinical scenario, this survey identified an unmet need supporting the development of such a tool for these patients.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear. Objective: To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting. Results: Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Factors associated with the duration of disability benefits claims among Canadian workers: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability insurance protects workers from total loss of income in case of a disabling injury or illness by providing wage-replacement benefits. To better inform early identification of claims at risk of prolonged recovery, we explored predictors of the duration of disability benefits claims. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using claims data provided by SSQ Life Insurance Company Inc., a private Canadian disability insurer. We examined all claims SSQ approved for short- and long-term disability benefits from Jan. 1, 2007, to Mar. 31, 2014, and evaluated the association between 9 variables and duration of short- and long-term disability benefits using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: For both short- (n = 70 776) and long-term disability (n = 22 205) claims, and across all disorders, older age, female sex, heavy job demands, presence of comorbidity, attending an independent medical evaluation, receipt of rehabilitation therapy and longer time to claim approval were associated with longer claim duration. Higher predisability salary was associated with longer short-term disability claim duration. Quebec residency was associated with longer short-term disability claim duration among workers with psychological disorders, but shorter short-term disability claim duration among those with musculoskeletal complaints and other illnesses. For long-term disability claims, however, residing in Quebec was associated with shorter claim duration, although the size of the association differed across clinical conditions. INTERPRETATION: The factors we found to be associated with the duration of short- and long-term disability claims may be helpful to identify claims at risk of prolonged recovery. Our study has limitations, however, and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and identify other promising predictors.

Premature Discontinuation of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are prematurely discontinued, examine the reasons for discontinuation, and compare the risk for recruitment failure in pediatric and adult RCTs. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of RCTs approved by 1 of 6 Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics, trial discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, REC files, and a survey of trialists. RESULTS: We included 894 RCTs, of which 86 enrolled children and 808 enrolled adults. Forty percent of the pediatric RCTs and 29% of the adult RCTs were discontinued. Slow recruitment accounted for 56% of pediatric RCT discontinuations and 43% of adult RCT discontinuations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses suggested that pediatric RCT was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure after adjustment for other potential risk factors (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.57-2.63). Independent risk factors were acute care setting (aOR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31), nonindustry sponsorship (aOR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.59-7.65), and smaller planned sample size (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, in decrements of 100 participants). CONCLUSION: Forty percent of pediatric RCTs were discontinued prematurely, owing predominately to slow recruitment. Enrollment of children was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure.

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RARE LYSOSOMAL STORAGE DISEASES: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use, challenges and opportunities associated with using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in studies with patients with rare lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs), we conducted interviews with researchers and health technology assessment (HTA) experts, and developed the methods for a systematic review of the literature. The purpose of the review is to identify the psychometrically sound generic and disease-specific PROs used in studies with patients with five LSDs of interest: Fabry, Gaucher (Type I), Niemann-Pick (Type B) and Pompe diseases, and mucopolysaccharidosis (Types I and II). METHODS: Researchers and HTA experts who responded to an email invitation participated in a telephone interview. We used qualitative content analysis to analyze the anonymized transcripts. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies that used PROs to investigate burden of disease or to assess the impact of interventions across the five LSDs of interest. RESULTS: Interviews with seven researchers and six HTA experts representing eight countries revealed five themes. These were: (i) the importance of using psychometrically sound PROs in studies with rare diseases, (ii) the paucity of disease-specific PROs, (iii) the importance of having PRO data for economic analyses, (iv) practical and psychometric limitations of existing PROs, and (v) suggestions for new PROs. The systematic review has been completed. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews highlight current challenges and opportunities experienced by researchers and HTA experts involved in work with rare LSDs. The ongoing systematic review will highlight the experience, opportunities, and limitations of PROs in LSDs and provide suggestions for future research.

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.

Premature Discontinuation of Randomized Trials in Critical and Emergency Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials that enroll patients in critical or emergency care (acute care) setting are challenging because of narrow time windows for recruitment and the inability of many patients to provide informed consent. To assess the extent that recruitment challenges lead to randomized clinical trial discontinuation, we compared the discontinuation of acute care and nonacute care randomized clinical trials. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 894 randomized clinical trials approved by six institutional review boards in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. SETTING: Randomized clinical trials involving patients in an acute or nonacute care setting. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We recorded trial characteristics, self-reported trial discontinuation, and self-reported reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, institutional review board files, and a survey of investigators. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 894 randomized clinical trials, 64 (7%) were acute care randomized clinical trials (29 critical care and 35 emergency care). Compared with the 830 nonacute care randomized clinical trials, acute care randomized clinical trials were more frequently discontinued (28 of 64, 44% vs 221 of 830, 27%; p = 0.004). Slow recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation, both in acute care (13 of 64, 20%) and in nonacute care randomized clinical trials (7 of 64, 11%). Logistic regression analyses suggested the acute care setting as an independent risk factor for randomized clinical trial discontinuation specifically as a result of slow recruitment (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31) after adjusting for other established risk factors, including nonindustry sponsorship and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care randomized clinical trials are more vulnerable to premature discontinuation than nonacute care randomized clinical trials and have an approximately four-fold higher risk of discontinuation due to slow recruitment. These results highlight the need for strategies to reliably prevent and resolve slow patient recruitment in randomized clinical trials conducted in the critical and emergency care setting.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System. RESULTS: Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Reporting of IMMPACT-recommended core outcome domains among trials assessing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) has recommended that trialists evaluating treatments for chronic pain should consider reporting 9 patient-important outcome domains. We examined the extent to which clinical trials evaluating the effect of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) report outcome domains recommended by IMMPACT. We systematically searched electronic databases for English-language studies that randomized patients with CNCP to receive an opioid or a non-opioid control. In duplicate and independently, reviewers established the eligibility of each identified study and recorded all reported outcome domains from eligible trials. We conducted a priori regression analyses to explore factors that may be associated with IMMPACT-recommended outcome domains. Among 156 eligible trials, reporting of IMMPACT-recommended outcome domains was highly variable, ranging from 99% for pain to 7% for interpersonal functioning. Recently published trials were more likely to report the effect of treatment on physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, sleep and fatigue, and participant disposition. Trials for which the corresponding author was from North America were more likely to report treatment effects on physical functioning and participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment. Trials published in higher impact journals were more likely to report treatment effects on emotional function, but less likely to report participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment. Most IMMPACT domains showed an increased rate of reporting over time, although many patient-important outcome domains remained unreported by over half of all trials evaluating the effects of opioids for CNCP.

Measures of patients' expectations about recovery: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients' expectations regarding their prognosis has been shown to affect recovery. We completed a systematic review to identify measures that assess patients' expectations of recovery. METHODS: Eligible studies explored the association between patients' expectations of recovery, and return to work or claim resolution. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE and PSYCInfo) from inception to June 21, 2014, bibliographies of eligible studies, relevant systematic reviews and our personal files. Reviewers determined study eligibility and study quality, and completed data extraction. RESULTS: Of 14,509 unique citations, 46 studies were eligible with majority of the studies (n = 27; 59 %) rated as low quality, primarily due to substantial missing data and inappropriate adjustment for age, gender and illness severity in their regression models. We identified 5 measures and 41 individual items assessing recovery expectations. Three of seven (43 %) studies using a measure to assess recovery expectations reported psychometric properties, with only one reporting both reliability and construct validity. Only two measures (Expectations of Recovery Scale and the Work-related Recovery Expectations Questionnaire) were externally validated in different populations. Overall, 44 (96 %) studies found that patient recovery expectations was a significant predictor of return to work or sick leave/disability claim resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Very few studies assessing recovery expectations use a psychometrically valid measure. Current evidence suggests that patients with lower recovery expectations are less likely to resolve their disability claim or return to work versus patients with higher recovery expectations. Further validation of existing measures for assessing patient recovery expectations, or development of a new measure that addresses the limitations of existing ones, is required.

Measures of Symptom Exaggeration for Mental Health Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Introduction .- Measures that help detect exaggeration of symptoms can be valuable for informing more accurate diagnoses and aid in treatment and case management. We completed a systematic review to identify measures that assess symptom exaggeration in mental health disorders. Methods .- Eligible studies assessed exaggeration of symptoms with a psychometrically validated measure in patients presenting with a mental health disorder. We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from inception to June 2013 for relevant studies. To determine study eligibility, reviewers screened title and abstracts of identified citations, and reviewed full texts of all potentially eligible citations. Data extractors completed data abstraction of eligible studies. Results .- Of 8435 unique citations, 105 studies consisting of 112 cohorts were eligible, and we identified 36 unique, validated measures assessing exaggeration of symptoms. The most frequently used measures were symptom validity indicators embedded in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) (n=48, 46%), the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) (n=12, 11%), and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) (n=11, 10%). Most studies (n=96; 91%) failed to test reliability of their measure of symptom exaggeration. The symptom validity indicators in the MMPI/MMPI-2 and the SIRS both showed moderate to high internal consistency, range 0.47 to 0.85 and 0.48 to 0.95, respectively. Conclusions .- Multiple measures assessing symptom exaggeration have been used in patients with mental health disorders. The symptom validity indicators of the MMPI/MMPI-2 are the most widely used measures to assess symptom exaggeration. Assessment and reporting of reliability is poor across studies; we require further assessment of psychometric properties for existing measures of symptom exaggeration.

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Activity-based funding of hospitals and its impact on mortality, readmission, discharge destination, severity of illness, and volume of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication. RESULTS: Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk  = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18-1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events. METHODS AND DESIGN: Eligible trials will include those that randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with any opioid or any non-opioid control group. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate confidence in the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. To ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for all outcomes reported and these will be based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences, when available. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses consistent with current best practices. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with opioid use for CNCP, evaluate confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with CNCP and identify key areas for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42012003023), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

How to use a noninferiority trial: users' guides to the medical literature.

Clinical investigators are increasingly testing treatments that have the primary benefit of decreased burden or harms relative to an existing standard. The goal of the resulting randomized trials--called noninferiority trials--is to establish that the novel treatment's effectiveness is not substantially less than the existing standard. Conclusions from these trials are, however, based on noninferiority thresholds specified by authors whose judgments may not coincide with those of patients and clinicians. This article highlights issues related to validity, interpretation, and applicability of results specific to noninferiority trials. Suboptimal administration of standard treatment or exclusive reliance on the analyze-as-randomized approach that is standard for conventional superiority trials may produce misleading results in noninferiority trials. Clinicians should judge whether the novel treatment's impact on effectiveness outcomes--the prime reason for wanting to prescribe it--is sufficiently close to that of standard treatment that they are comfortable substituting it for the existing standard. Trading off desirable and undesirable consequences is an individual decision: given the benefits of a novel treatment, some patients may perceive the uncertainty regarding a reduction in treatment effectiveness as acceptable while others may not.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

CONTEXT: Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. RESULTS: The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks <0.75) occurred with truncated RCTs having fewer than 500 events. In 39 of the 63 questions (62%), the pooled effects of the nontruncated RCTs failed to demonstrate significant benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit: a protocol of the Study Of Trial Policy Of Interim Truncation-2 (STOPIT-2).

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit often receive great attention and affect clinical practice, but pose interpretational challenges for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. Because the decision to stop the trial may arise from catching the treatment effect at a random high, truncated RCTs (tRCTs) may overestimate the true treatment effect. The Study Of Trial Policy Of Interim Truncation (STOPIT-1), which systematically reviewed the epidemiology and reporting quality of tRCTs, found that such trials are becoming more common, but that reporting of stopping rules and decisions were often deficient. Most importantly, treatment effects were often implausibly large and inversely related to the number of the events accrued. The aim of STOPIT-2 is to determine the magnitude and determinants of possible bias introduced by stopping RCTs early for benefit. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use sensitive strategies to search for systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question as each of the tRCTs identified in STOPIT-1 and in a subsequent literature search. We will check all RCTs included in each systematic review to determine their similarity to the index tRCT in terms of participants, interventions, and outcome definition, and conduct new meta-analyses addressing the outcome that led to early termination of the tRCT. For each pair of tRCT and systematic review of corresponding non-tRCTs we will estimate the ratio of relative risks, and hence estimate the degree of bias. We will use hierarchical multivariable regression to determine the factors associated with the magnitude of this ratio. Factors explored will include the presence and quality of a stopping rule, the methodological quality of the trials, and the number of total events that had occurred at the time of truncation.Finally, we will evaluate whether Bayesian methods using conservative informative priors to "regress to the mean" overoptimistic tRCTs can correct observed biases. DISCUSSION: A better understanding of the extent to which tRCTs exaggerate treatment effects and of the factors associated with the magnitude of this bias can optimize trial design and data monitoring charters, and may aid in the interpretation of the results from trials stopped early for benefit.