Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) ...design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessment of surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.
Summary Background The ICON7 trial previously reported improved progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer with the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, with the greatest ...effect in patients at high risk of disease progression. We report the final overall survival results of the trial. Methods ICON7 was an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 263 centres in 11 countries across Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Eligible adult women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer that was either high-risk early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics FIGO stage I–IIa, grade 3 or clear cell histology) or more advanced disease (FIGO stage IIb–IV), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to standard chemotherapy (six 3-weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 of body surface area) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab 7·5 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 3 weeks, given concurrently and continued with up to 12 further 3-weekly cycles of maintenance therapy. Randomisation was done by a minimisation algorithm stratified by FIGO stage, residual disease, interval between surgery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; the study was also powered to detect a difference in overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN91273375. Findings Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, 1528 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=764) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=764). Median follow-up at the end of the trial on March 31, 2013, was 48·9 months (IQR 26·6–56·2), at which point 714 patients had died (352 in the chemotherapy group and 362 in the bevacizumab group). Our results showed evidence of non-proportional hazards, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. No overall survival benefit of bevacizumab was recorded (restricted mean survival time 44·6 months 95% CI 43·2–45·9 in the standard chemotherapy group vs 45·5 months 44·2–46·7 in the bevacizumab group; log-rank p=0·85). In an exploratory analysis of a predefined subgroup of 502 patients with poor prognosis disease, 332 (66%) died (174 in the standard chemotherapy group and 158 in the bevacizumab group), and a significant difference in overall survival was noted between women who received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and those who received chemotherapy alone (restricted mean survival time 34·5 months 95% CI 32·0–37·0 with standard chemotherapy vs 39·3 months 37·0–41·7 with bevacizumab; log-rank p=0·03). However, in non-high-risk patients, the restricted mean survival time did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (49·7 months 95% CI 48·3–51·1) in the standard chemotherapy group vs 48·4 months 47·0–49·9 in the bevacizumab group; p=0·20). An updated analysis of progression-free survival showed no difference between treatment groups. During extended follow-up, one further treatment-related grade 3 event (gastrointestinal fistula in a bevacizumab-treated patient), three grade 2 treatment-related events (cardiac failure, sarcoidosis, and foot fracture, all in bevacizumab-treated patients), and one grade 1 treatment-related event (vaginal haemorrhage, in a patient treated with standard chemotherapy) were reported. Interpretation Bevacizumab, added to platinum-based chemotherapy, did not increase overall survival in the study population as a whole. However, an overall survival benefit was recorded in poor-prognosis patients, which is concordant with the progression-free survival results from ICON7 and GOG-218, and provides further evidence towards the optimum use of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Funding The National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Medical Research Council, and Roche.
Summary Background Two commonly performed surgical interventions are available for severe (grade II–IV) haemorrhoids; traditional excisional surgery and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Uncertainty exists ...as to which is most effective. The eTHoS trial was designed to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared with traditional excisional surgery. Methods The eTHoS trial was a large, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial done in adult participants (aged 18 years or older) referred to hospital for surgical treatment for grade II–IV haemorrhoids. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either traditional excisional surgery or stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Randomisation was minimised according to baseline EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 level score (EQ-5D-3L), haemorrhoid grade, sex, and centre with an automated system to stapled haemorrhoidopexy or traditional excisional surgery. The primary outcome was area under the quality of life curve (AUC) measured with the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, assessed according to the randomised groups. The primary outcome measure was analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80061723. Findings Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 1, 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 388 to receive traditional excisional surgery). Stapled haemorrhoidopexy was less painful than traditional excisional surgery in the short term and surgical complication rates were similar between groups. The EQ-5D-3L AUC score was higher in the traditional excisional surgery group than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group over 24 months; mean difference −0·073 (95% CI −0·140 to −0·006; p=0·0342). EQ-5D-3L was higher for stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the first 6 weeks after surgery, the traditional excisional surgery group had significantly better quality of life scores than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group. 24 (7%) of 338 participants who received stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 33 (9%) of 352 participants who received traditional excisional surgery had serious adverse events. Interpretation As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, traditional excisional surgery should be considered over stapled haemorrhoidopexy as the surgical treatment of choice. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its ...effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.
We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 worst to 48 best) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.
Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 23%, 43 42%, and 12 12% of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points SD 11·6 vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points 9·2; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points SD 11·9, mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points 95% CI 0·5–5·2, p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 1·8–6·6, p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).
Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process.
Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).
The target difference refers to the treatment effect specified in the sample size calculation conducted when designing the study to detect a difference between treatments (i.e. a superiority ...contrast). The main benefit of setting the target difference to the MID, if one were to do so, is that it ensures that the study has the required statistical power across a range of possible differences that are viewed as “important” to one or more stakeholder groups, assuming of course, that all the other assumptions of the sample size calculation are appropriate. Power is the proportion of these studies which would detect the effect of interest (as specified in the sample size calculation e.g. 2-sided p-value ≤ 0.05) if it really exists. Furthermore, it is often not reasonable to assume with confidence relevant nuisance parameters which have a bearing on the estimation of the treatment effect (e.g. the correlation between multiple baseline factors and the outcome of interest) 6. ...the stated power is often in practice an educated approximation (aside from considerations of the specification of the target difference).
Recently, it was argued that clinically important differences should play no role in sample size calculations. Instead, it was proposed that sample size calculations should focus on setting realistic ...estimates of treatment benefit. We disagree, and argue in this article that considering the importance of a target difference is necessary in the context of randomised controlled trials of effectiveness, particularly definitive phase III trials. Ignoring clinical importance could have serious ethical and practical consequences.
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.
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.
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.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Chronic liver disease (CLD) and cirrhosis are associated with immune dysregulation, leading to concerns that affected patients may be at risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. We ...aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on patients with pre-existing liver disease, which currently remains ill-defined.
Between 25th March and 8th July 2020, data on 745 patients with CLD and SARS-CoV-2 (including 386 with and 359 without cirrhosis) were collected by 2 international registries and compared to data on non-CLD patients with SARS-CoV-2 from a UK hospital network.
Mortality was 32% in patients with cirrhosis compared to 8% in those without (p <0.001). Mortality in patients with cirrhosis increased according to Child-Pugh class (A 19%, B 35%, C 51%) and the main cause of death was from respiratory failure (71%). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, factors associated with death in the total CLD cohort were age (odds ratio OR 1.02; 1.01–1.04), Child-Pugh A (OR 1.90; 1.03–3.52), B (OR 4.14; 2.4–7.65), or C (OR 9.32; 4.80–18.08) cirrhosis and alcohol-related liver disease (OR 1.79; 1.03–3.13). Compared to patients without CLD (n = 620), propensity-score-matched analysis revealed significant increases in mortality in those with Child-Pugh B (+20.0% 8.8%–31.3%) and C (+38.1% 27.1%–49.2%) cirrhosis. Acute hepatic decompensation occurred in 46% of patients with cirrhosis, of whom 21% had no respiratory symptoms. Half of those with hepatic decompensation had acute-on-chronic liver failure.
In the largest such cohort to date, we demonstrate that baseline liver disease stage and alcohol-related liver disease are independent risk factors for death from COVID-19. These data have important implications for the risk stratification of patients with CLD across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This international registry study demonstrates that patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk of death from COVID-19. Mortality from COVID-19 was particularly high among patients with more advanced cirrhosis and those with alcohol-related liver disease.
Display omitted
•Patients with cirrhosis experience high rates of hepatic decompensation and death following SARS-CoV-2 infection.•Mortality increased in stepwise fashion according to Child-Pugh class.•Other risk factors for death included advancing age and alcohol-related liver disease.•Mortality risk was higher in patients with advanced cirrhosis than propensity-score-matched controls without liver disease.•The majority of deaths in patients with cirrhosis were from COVID-19-related lung disease.
Summary Background Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1–3 inhibitor ...that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Methods In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00532194 ; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003. Findings We randomly assigned 486 women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14–26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4–11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7–9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44–0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4–10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation. Interpretation Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up. Funding Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca.
PDF
