IMbrave 151: a randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are heterogenous, highly aggressive tumors that harbor a dismal prognosis for which more effective treatments are needed. The role of cancer immunotherapy in BTC remains to be characterized. The tumor microenvironment (TME) of BTC is highly immunosuppressed and combination treatments are needed to promote effective anticancer immunity. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drives immunosuppression in the TME by disrupting antigen presentation, limiting T-cell infiltration, or potentiating immune-suppressive cells. Many VEGF-regulated mechanisms are thought to be relevant to repressed antitumor immunity in BTC, making dual targeting of VEGF and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 pathways a rational approach. Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (Gem/Cis) can also modulate anticancer immunity through overlapping and complementary mechanisms to those regulated by VEGF. Anti-PD-L1/VEGF inhibition, coupled with chemotherapy, may potentiate antitumor immunity leading to enhanced clinical benefit. METHODS: IMbrave 151 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international phase II study to evaluate atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin) and bevacizumab (an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) as a first-line treatment for advanced BTC. Approximately 150 patients with previously untreated, advanced BTC will be randomized to either Arm A (atezolizumab + bevacizumab + Gem/Cis) or Arm B (atezolizumab + placebo + Gem/Cis). Randomization is stratified by the presence of metastatic disease, primary tumor location, and geographic region. The primary efficacy endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs). Tissue, blood, and stool samples will be collected at baseline and on-treatment in order to perform correlative biomarker analyses. DISCUSSION: IMbrave 151 represents the first randomized study to evaluate combined PD-L1/VEGF blockade on a chemotherapy backbone in BTC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT identifier: NCT04677504; EUDRACT number: 2020-003759-14.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in the Chinese Subpopulation with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Phase 3 Randomized, Open-Label IMbrave150 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in IMbrave150. Efficacy and safety data from the Chinese subpopulation are reported. METHODS: IMbrave150, a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study in patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC, included an extension phase that enrolled additional patients from mainland China. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks or sorafenib 400 mg twice a day until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Co-primary endpoints were OS and independent review facility-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of 194 Chinese patients enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 8, 2019 (137 in the global study and 57 in the China extension phase), 133 received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 61 received sorafenib. At the data cutoff (August 29, 2019), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.76) and for PFS was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40-0.90). The respective median OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were not reached (NR; 95% CI, 13.5 months to NR) and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.3) versus 11.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to NR) and 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.8) with sorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78 of 132 (59.1%) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab-treated and 27 of 58 (46.6%) sorafenib-treated patients. The most common grade 3-4 AE with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was hypertension, occurring in 15.2% of patients; however, other high-grade AEs were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib suggest that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may become a practice-changing treatment for Chinese patients with unresectable HCC.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.).

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.

Limited responsiveness related to the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcomes in rare diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in interventional studies involving patients with rare lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched eight databases for experimental and nonexperimental studies. Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened articles and subsequently extracted data from the eligible studies. Among studies with 10 or more patients using a valid PRO, we assessed the responsiveness of PROs based on a reanalysis of the data using minimal important difference estimates. Our analyses focused on statistically significant within-group differences in PROs for observational studies or the statistically significant between-group differences in PRO scores for controlled studies. RESULTS: Of 2,679 unique records, 62 interventional studies addressing patients with Fabry (55%), Gaucher (19%), Pompe (16%), and mucopolysaccharidoses (11%) proved eligible. The most frequently used PROs were the Short-Form-36 (25 studies), Brief Pain Inventory (20 studies), EuroQoL-5D (9 studies), and the Fatigue Severity Scale (6 studies). Observational studies suggest that PROs sometimes detect significant within-group changes when present. Randomized trials raise questions regarding the responsiveness of PROs to small differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies have relied on generic PROs to evaluate quality of life and symptoms in patients with rare LSDs. PROs appear more responsive in observational studies than randomized trials.

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.

Completion and Publication Rates of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery: An Empirical Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical versus medical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore risk factors for discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical RCTs. BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation has significant scientific, ethical, and economic implications. To date, the prevalence of discontinuation of surgical RCTs is unknown. METHODS: All RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by 6 ethics committees in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland were screened. Baseline characteristics were collected and, if published, full reports retrieved. Risk factors for early discontinuation for slow recruitment and nonpublication were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 863 RCT protocols involving adult patients were identified, 127 in surgery (15%) and 736 in medicine (85%). Surgical trials were discontinued for any reason more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%-26%); P = 0.001] and more often discontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%-16%); P = 0.020]. The percentage of trials not published as full journal article was similar in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: -5% to 14%); P = 0.373). Discontinuation of surgical trials was a strong risk factor for nonpublication (odds ratio = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.45-12.06; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation and nonpublication rates were substantial in surgical RCTs and trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings need to be taken into account when interpreting surgical literature. Surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before embarking on full-scale trials.

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.