Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.

Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21-1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73-1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86-1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.

The effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on range of motion: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) on range of motion (ROM). METHODS: We performed a literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 23, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that compared treatment groups receiving IASTM to controls or IASTM plus another treatment(s) to other treatment(s) among healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or patients with musculoskeletal disorders were included. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Nine trials including 450 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. The IASTM was effective in improving ROM in degree in healthy individuals with ROM deficits and patients with musculoskeletal disorders (n=4) (MD = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.29 to 6.60), and in healthy individuals without ROM deficits (n=4) (MD = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.34), but failed to improve ROM in centimeter in healthy individuals with ROM deficits (n=1) (MD = 0.39, 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.11, p=0.66, I2 = 88%). CONCLUSIONS: IASTM can improve ROM in degree in healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (with very low to low certainty). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROSPERO registration ID is CRD42023425200.

Rationale and design of the THIRST Alert feasibility study: a pragmatic, single-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of an interruptive alert for oral fluid restriction in patients treated with intravenous furosemide.

INTRODUCTION: Acute heart failure (HF) is a major cause of unplanned hospitalisation characterised by excess body water. A restriction in oral fluid intake is commonly imposed on patients as an adjunct to pharmacological therapy with loop diuretics, but there is a lack of evidence from traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support the safety and effectiveness of this intervention in the acute setting.This study aims to explore the feasibility of using computer alerts within the electronic health record (EHR) system to invite clinical care teams to enrol patients into a pragmatic RCT at the time of clinical decision-making. It will additionally assess the effectiveness of using an alert to help address the clinical research question of whether oral fluid restriction is a safe and effective adjunct to pharmacological therapy for patients admitted with fluid overload. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: THIRST (Randomised Controlled Trial within the electronic Health record of an Interruptive alert displaying a fluid Restriction Suggestion in patients with the treatable Trait of congestion) Alert is a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label pragmatic RCT embedded in the EHR system that will be conducted as a feasibility study at an National Health Service (NHS) hospital in London. The clinical care team will be invited to enrol suitable patients in the study using a point-of-care alert with a target sample size of 50 patients. Enrolled patients will then be randomised to either restricted or unrestricted oral fluid intake. Two primary outcomes will be explored (1) the proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the study and (2) the mean difference in oral fluid intake between randomised groups. A series of secondary outcomes are specified to evaluate the effectiveness of the alert, adherence to the randomised treatment allocation and the quality of data generated from routine care, relevant to the outcomes of interest. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 22/LO/0889) and will be published on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05869656.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Mixed-methods feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of proton pump inhibitors to reduce strictures following neonatal surgery for oesophageal atresia.

OBJECTIVES: This mixed-methods feasibility study aimed to explore parents' and medical practitioners' views on the acceptability and design of a clinical trial to determine whether routine prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPI) reduce the incidence of anastomotic stricture in infants with oesophageal atresia (OA). DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with UK parents of an infant with OA and an online survey, telephone interviews and focus groups with clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We interviewed 18 parents of infants with OA. Fifty-one clinicians (49 surgeons, 2 neonatologists) from 20/25 (80%) units involved in OA repair completed an online survey and 10 took part in 1 of 2 focus groups. Interviews were conducted with two clinicians whose survey responses indicated they had concerns about the trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Parents and clinicians ranked the same top four outcomes ('Severity of anastomotic stricture', 'Incidence of anastomotic stricture', 'Need for treatment of reflux' and 'Presence of symptoms of reflux') as important to measure for the proposed trial. RESULTS: All parents and most clinicians found the use, dose and duration of omeprazole as the intervention medication, and the placebo control, as acceptable. Parents stated they would hypothetically consent to their child's participation in the trial. Concerns of a few parents and clinicians about infants suffering with symptomatic reflux, and the impact of this for study retention, appeared to be alleviated through the symptomatic reflux treatment pathway. Hesitant clinician views appeared to change through discussion of parental support for the study and by highlighting existing research that questions current practice of PPI treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that parents and most clinicians view the proposed Treating Oesophageal Atresia with prophylactic proton pump inhibitors to prevent STricture (TOAST) trial to be feasible and acceptable so long as infants can be given PPI if clinicians deem it clinically necessary. This insight into parent and clinician views and concerns will inform pilot phase trial monitoring, staff training and the development of the trial protocol.

Estimation of hurst exponent for sequential monitoring of clinical trials with covariate adaptive randomization.

BACKGROUND: Classical Brownian motion (BM) has been commonly used in monitoring clinical trials including those with covariate adaptive randomization (CAR). Independent increment property is commonly assumed in the sequential monitoring process of the clinical trials with CAR designs. However, in reality, correlation may exist in the error terms of the underlying model, resulting in dependent increment in the sequential monitoring process. METHODS: We conducted simulations for estimating the Hurst exponent to evaluate the stochastic property in the covariate adaptive randomized clinical trials under two scenarios: 1. CAR designs with independent and identically distributed error terms. 2. CAR designs with correlated error terms. The theoretical properties of covariate adaptive randomized clinical trials with correlated error structure were investigated. A test statistic including the covariance pattern of the error terms was proposed. CONCLUSION: In our study, the sequential test statistics under CAR procedure is shown to be asymptotically Brownian motion when the error structure is correctly specified. Further, Brownian motion is a special case of fractional Brownian motion when Hurst exponent equals to 0.5. Our simulations are consistent with the theoretical asymptotic results.

Improving the design of RCTs in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Concerns have been raised that randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) might be failing to identify patients that best show differences in clinical response rates between those receiving active drug and those receiving placebo therapies; in addition, some studies might even be showing spurious differences in responses to TNF and IL-17 inhibitor therapies. In particular, the most recent phase III RCTs in nr-axSpA have reported variable and generally lower response rates than observed in phase III trials of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and in trials conducted a decade ago in patients with early axSpA who were selected on the basis of axial inflammation evident on MRI scans. We argue that these observations at least partly reflect an RCT design that does not take full advantage of MRI to select patients who are responsive to therapy because the current MRI-based inclusion criteria cannot identify patients with axSpA with sufficient specificity. We propose that future studies should be designed using revised patient inclusion criteria based on expanded MRI evaluation and the application of data-driven definitions of a positive MRI for inflammatory and structural lesions typical of axSpA reported in an international multicentre analysis of MRI scans from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification cohort.

De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention among East Asians and non-East Asians: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To study the impact of de-escalation antiplatelet therapy retaining P2Y12 inhibition on major bleeding and ischemic outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among East Asians and non-East Asians was unclear. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials through September 2020. Eight trials were included, which studied de-escalation of DAPT (D-DAPT, switching to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, or switching to clopidogrel or dose reduction of the P2Y12 inhibitor after 1 to 3 months) versus 12 months standard DAPT (S-DAPT). The primary outcomes data was conducted using random effects models. RESULTS: Among the 8 included trials consisting of 37,775 patients, 62.6% presented with acute coronary syndrome. The median follow-up duration ranged from 12 to 24 months. Compared with S-DAPT, D-DAPT was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93, p = 0.02); however, this was only observed among East-Asians (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.048). Among non-East Asians, the rate of major bleeding was similar between the two groups (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.14, p = 0.17, p for interaction = 0.59). There were no significant differences in the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between D-DAPT and S-DAPT treatment among both East Asians (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.08, p = 0.18) and non-East Asians (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, p = 0.059, p for interaction = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The De-escalation strategy that retains P2Y12 inhibition after a PCI was associated with reduced risk of bleeding events, which was only demonstrated in East Asians patients, and not in non-East Asian patients.

Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered. Engagement of patients and members of the public in selecting the primary trial outcome and determining the target difference can better ensure that the trial is designed to inform the decisions of those who ultimately stand to benefit. However, to the best of our knowledge, the use and reporting of PROs and patient and public engagement in pragmatic trials have not been described. The objectives of this study were to review a sample of pragmatic trials to describe (1) the prevalence of reporting patient and public engagement; (2) the prevalence and types of PROs used; (3) how its use varies across trial characteristics; and (4) how sample sizes and target differences are determined for trials with primary PROs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a methodological review of primary reports of pragmatic trials. We used a published electronic search filter in MEDLINE to identify pragmatic trials, published in English between January 1, 2014 and April 3, 2019; we identified the subset that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Trial descriptors were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov; information about PROs and sample size calculations were extracted from the manuscript. Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between trial characteristics and use of PROs. Among 4,337 identified primary trial reports, 1,988 were registered in CT.gov, of which 415 were explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Use of patient and public engagement was identified in 39 (9.4%). PROs were measured in 235 (56.6%): 144 (34.7%) used PROs as primary outcomes and 91 (21.9%) as only secondary outcomes. Primary PROs were symptoms (64; 44%), health behaviors (36; 25.0%), quality of life (17; 11.8%), functional status (16; 11.1%), and patient experience (10; 6.9%). Trial characteristics with lower prevalence of use of PROs included being conducted exclusively in children or adults over age 65 years, cluster randomization, recruitment in low- and middle-income countries, and primary purpose of prevention; trials conducted in Europe had the highest prevalence of PROs. For the 144 trials with a primary PRO, 117 (81.3%) reported a sample size calculation for that outcome; of these, 71 (60.7%) justified the choice of target difference, most commonly, using estimates from pilot studies (31; 26.5%), standardized effect sizes (20; 17.1%), or evidence reviews (16; 13.7%); patient or stakeholder opinions were used to justify the target difference in 8 (6.8%). Limitations of this study are the need for trials to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, which may have reduced generalizability, and extracting information only from the primary trial report. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that pragmatic trials rarely report patient and public engagement and do not commonly use PROs as primary outcomes. When provided, target differences are often not justified and rarely informed by patients and stakeholders. Research funders, scientific journals, and institutions should support trialists to incorporate patient engagement to fulfill the mandate of pragmatic trials to be patient centered.

Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences in Children: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with increased risk of poor mental health outcomes. Although there is interest in screening for ACEs for early identification and intervention, it is not known whether screening improves outcomes for children. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review whether screening for ACEs in children leads to an increase in (1) identification of ACEs, (2) referrals to services, (3) increased uptake of services, and (4) improved mental health outcomes for children and parents. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Center for Clinical and Translational Research electronic databases were searched between 2009 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if researchers screened for current ACEs in children aged 0 to 12 years and they had a control comparison. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was extracted, including study characteristics, sample demographics, screening tool characteristics, referral rates to services, uptake rates, and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5816 articles were screened, with 4 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Screening for ACEs increases identification of adversity and may increase referrals to services. There are limited data about whether this leads to an increase in referral uptake by families. There are no reported data addressing mental health outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There are few published control trials of moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that screening for ACEs improves identification of childhood adversity and may improve referrals. If we are to realize the hypothesized benefits of ACEs screening on child and parent mental health, it is essential to understand the barriers for families taking up referrals.

STOP: an open label crossover trial to study ICS withdrawal in patients with a combination of obesity and low-inflammatory asthma and evaluate its effect on asthma control and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Asthma patients with obesity often have a high disease burden, despite the use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In contrast to asthmatics with normal weight, the efficacy of ICS in patients with obesity and asthma is often relatively low. Meanwhile, patients do suffer from side effects, such as weight gain, development of diabetes, cataract, or high blood pressure. The relatively poor response to ICS might be explained by the low prevalence of type 2 inflammatory patterns (T2-low) in patients with asthma and obesity. T2-low inflammation is characterized by low eosinophilic count, low Fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), no clinically allergy-driven asthma, and no need for maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS). We aim to study whether ICS can be safely withdrawn in patients with T2-low asthma and obesity while maintaining an equal level of asthma control. Secondary outcomes focus on the prevalence of 'false-negative' T2-low phenotypes (i.e. T2-hidden) and the effect of ICS withdrawal on parameters of the metabolic syndrome. This study will lead to a better understanding of this poorly understood subgroup and might find new treatable traits. METHODS: The STOP trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, crossover study aiming to assess whether ICS can be safely withdrawn in adults aged 17-75 years with T2-low asthma and obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients will be randomly divided into two arms (both n = 60). One arm will start with fixed-dose ICS (control group) and one arm will taper and subsequently stop ICS (intervention group). Patients in the intervention group will remain ICS naïve for ten weeks. After a washout of 4 weeks, patients will crossover to the other study arm. The crossover study takes 36 weeks to complete. Patients will be asked to participate in the extension study, to investigate the long-term metabolic benefits of ICS withdrawal. DISCUSSION: This study yields valuable data on ICS tapering in patients with T2-low asthma and obesity. It informs future guidelines and committees on corticosteroid-sparing algorithms in these patients. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NL8759, registered 2020-07-06, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8759 . Protocol version and date: version 2.1, 20 November 2020.

PIONEER-Panc: a platform trial for phase II randomized investigations of new and emerging therapies for localized pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Personalized and effective treatments for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continue to remain elusive. Novel clinical trial designs that enable continual and rapid evaluation of novel therapeutics are needed. Here, we describe a platform clinical trial to address this unmet need. METHODS: This is a phase II study using a Bayesian platform design to evaluate multiple experimental arms against a control arm in patients with PDAC. We first separate patients into three clinical stage groups of localized PDAC (resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced disease), and further divide each stage group based on treatment history (treatment naïve or previously treated). The clinical stage and treatment history therefore define 6 different cohorts, and each cohort has one control arm but may have one or more experimental arms running simultaneously. Within each cohort, adaptive randomization rules are applied and patients will be randomized to either an experimental arm or the control arm accordingly. The experimental arm(s) of each cohort are only compared to the applicable cohort specific control arm. Experimental arms may be added independently to one or more cohorts during the study. Multiple correlative studies for tissue, blood, and imaging are also incorporated. DISCUSSION: To date, PDAC has been treated as a single disease, despite knowledge that there is substantial heterogeneity in disease presentation and biology. It is recognized that the current approach of single arm phase II trials and traditional phase III randomized studies are not well-suited for more personalized treatment strategies in PDAC. The PIONEER Panc platform clinical trial is designed to overcome these challenges and help advance our treatment strategies for this deadly disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of MD Anderson Cancer Center, IRB-approved protocol 2020-0075. The PIONEER trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04481204 .

Management of traumatic brain injury: a narrative review of current evidence.

Globally, approximately 70 million people sustain traumatic brain injury each year and this can have significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for patients, their families and society. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with a summary of recent studies of direct relevance to the management of traumatic brain injury in order to promote best clinical practice. The use of tranexamic acid in the management of traumatic brain injury has been the focus of several studies, with one large randomised controlled trial suggesting a reduction in all-cause mortality within 24 h of injury. The use of therapeutic hypothermia does not improve neurological outcomes and maintenance of normothermia remains the optimal management strategy. For seizure management, levetiracetam appears to be as effective as phenytoin, but the optimal dose remains unclear. There has been a lack of clear outcome benefit for any individual osmotherapy agent, with no difference in mortality or neurological recovery. Early tracheostomy (< 7 days from injury) for patients with traumatic brain injury is associated with a reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and duration of mechanical ventilation, critical care and hospital stay. Further research is needed in order to determine the optimal package of care and interventions. There is a need for research studies to focus on patient-centred outcome measures such as long-term neurological recovery and quality of life.

Anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy: a narrative review.

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and is associated with a huge societal and economic burden. Interventions for the immediate treatment of ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion are dependent on recanalisation of the occluded vessel. Trials have provided evidence supporting the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. This has resulted in changes in management and organisation of stroke care worldwide. Major determinants of effectiveness of thrombectomy include: time between stroke onset and reperfusion; location of occlusion and local collateral perfusion; adequacy of reperfusion; patient age; and stroke severity. The role of anaesthetic technique on outcome remains controversial with published research showing conflicting results. As a result, choice of conscious sedation or general anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy is often dependent on individual operator choice or institutional preference. More recent randomised controlled trials have suggested that protocol-driven general anaesthesia is no worse than conscious sedation and may even be associated with better outcomes. These and other studies have highlighted the importance of optimal blood pressure management as a major determinant of patient outcome. Anaesthetic management should be tailored to the individual patient and circumstances. Acute ischaemic stroke is a neurological emergency; clinicians should focus on minimising door-to-groin puncture time and the provision of high-quality periprocedural care with a particular emphasis on the maintenance of an adequate blood pressure.