How is overall survival assessed in randomised clinical trials in cancer and are subsequent treatment lines considered? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival is the "gold standard" endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered. METHODS: Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching). DISCUSSION: Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed.

Effects of Vedolizumab in Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gut-homing lymphocytes that express the integrin α4ß7 and CCR9 might contribute to development of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Vedolizumab, which blocks the integrin α4ß7, is used to treat patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), but there are few data on its efficacy in patients with PSC. We investigated the effects of vedolizumab in a large international cohort of patients with PSC and IBD. METHODS: We collected data from European and North American centers participating in the International PSC Study Group from patients with PSC and IBD who received at least 3 doses of vedolizumab (n = 102; median vedolizumab treatment duration, 412 days). Demographic and clinical data were collected from baseline and during the follow-up period (until liver transplantation, death, or 56 days after the final vedolizumab infusion). We analyzed overall changes in biochemical features of liver and proportions of patients with reductions in serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) of 20% or more, from baseline through last follow-up evaluation. Other endpoints included response of IBD to treatment (improved, unchanged, or worsened, judged by the treating clinician, as well as endoscopic score) and liver-related outcomes. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, the median serum level of ALP increased from 1.54-fold the upper limit of normal at baseline to 1.64-fold the upper limit of normal at the last follow-up examination (P = .018); serum levels of transaminases and bilirubin also increased by a small amount between baseline and the last follow-up examination. Serum levels of ALP decreased by 20% or more in 21 patients (20.6%); only the presence of cirrhosis (odds ratio, 4.48; P = .019) was independently associated with this outcome. Of patients with available endoscopic data, 56.8% had a response of IBD to treatment. Liver-related events occurred in 21 patients (20.6%), including bacterial cholangitis, cirrhosis decompensation, or transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of patients with PSC and IBD in an international study group, we found no evidence for a biochemical response to vedolizumab, although serum level of ALP decreased by 20% or more in a subset of patients. Vedolizumab appears to be well tolerated and the overall response of IBD was the same as expected for patients without PSC.

A Practical Guide to Assess the Reproducibility of Echocardiographic Measurements.

Echocardiography plays an essential role in the diagnosis and assessment of cardiovascular disease. Measurements derived from echocardiography are also used to determine the severity of disease, its progression over time, and to aid in the choice of optimal therapy. It is therefore clinically important that echocardiographic measurements be reproducible, repeatable, and reliable. There are a variety of statistical tests available to assess these parameters, and in this article the authors summarize those available for use by echocardiographers to improve their clinical practice. Correlation coefficients, linear regression, Bland-Altman plots, and the coefficient of variation are explored, along with their limitations. The authors also provide an online tool for the easy calculation of these statistics in the clinical environment (www.birmingham.ac.uk/echo). Quantifying and enhancing the reproducibility of echocardiography has important potential to improve the value of echocardiography as the basis for good clinical decision-making.

Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The logrank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are routinely applied in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes. Usually, sample size and power calculations assume proportional hazards (PH) of the treatment effect, i.e. the hazard ratio is constant over the entire follow-up period. If the PH assumption fails, the power of the logrank/Cox test may be reduced, sometimes severely. It is, therefore, important to understand how serious this can become in real trials, and for a proven, alternative test to be available to increase the robustness of the primary test. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify relevant articles in four leading medical journals that publish results of phase 3 clinical trials. Altogether, 50 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. We digitised published Kaplan-Meier curves and created approximations to the original times to event or censoring at the individual patient level. Using the reconstructed data, we tested for non-PH in all 50 trials. We compared the results from the logrank/Cox test with those from the combined test recently proposed by Royston and Parmar. RESULTS: The PH assumption was checked and reported only in 28% of the studies. Evidence of non-PH at the 0.10 level was detected in 31% of comparisons. The Cox test of the treatment effect was significant at the 0.05 level in 49% of comparisons, and the combined test in 55%. In four of five trials with discordant results, the interpretation would have changed had the combined test been used. The degree of non-PH and the dominance of the p value for the combined test were strongly associated. Graphical investigation suggested that non-PH was mostly due to a treatment effect manifesting in an early follow-up and disappearing later. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for non-PH is checked (and, hence, identified) in only a small minority of RCTs, but non-PH may be present in a substantial fraction of such trials. In our reanalysis of the reconstructed data from 50 trials, the combined test outperformed the Cox test overall. The combined test is a promising approach to making trial design and analysis more robust.

Re-Examination of the BEST Trial Using Composite Outcomes, Including Emergency Department Visits.

OBJECTIVES: The influence of choice of endpoint on trial size, duration, and interpretation of results was examined in patients with heart failure who were enrolled in BEST (Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial). BACKGROUND: The choice of endpoints in heart failure trials has evolved over the past 3 decades. METHODS: In the BEST trial, we used Cox regression analysis to examine the effect of bucindolol on the current standard composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (CVD/HFH) compared with the original primary mortality endpoint and the expanded composite that included emergency department (ED) visits. We also undertook an analysis of recurrent events primarily using the Lin, Wei, Ying, and Yang model. RESULTS: Overall, 448 (33%) patients on placebo and 411 (30%) patients on bucindolol died (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 1.02; p = 0.11). A total of 730 (54%) patients experienced CVD/HFH on placebo and 624 (46%) on bucindolol (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89; p < 0.001). Adding ED visits increased these numbers to 768 (57%) and 668 (49%), respectively (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.90; p < 0.001). A total of 568 (42%) patients on placebo experienced HFH compared with 476 (35%) patients on bucindolol (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89; p < 0.001), with a total of 1,333 and 1,124 admissions, respectively. With the same statistical assumptions, using the composite endpoint instead of all-cause mortality would have reduced the trial size by 40% and follow-up duration by 69%. The rate ratio for recurrent events (CVD/HFH) was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of endpoint has major implications for trial size and duration, as well as interpretation of results. The value of broader composite endpoints and inclusion of recurrent events needs further investigation. (Beta Blocker Evaluation in Survival Trial [BEST]; NCT00000560).

Analysis of recurrent events with an associated informative dropout time: Application of the joint frailty model.

This paper considers the analysis of a repeat event outcome in clinical trials of chronic diseases in the context of dependent censoring (e.g. mortality). It has particular application in the context of recurrent heart failure hospitalisations in trials of heart failure. Semi-parametric joint frailty models (JFMs) simultaneously analyse recurrent heart failure hospitalisations and time to cardiovascular death, estimating distinct hazard ratios whilst individual-specific latent variables induce associations between the two processes. A simulation study was carried out to assess the suitability of the JFM versus marginal analyses of recurrent events and cardiovascular death using standard methods. Hazard ratios were consistently overestimated when marginal models were used, whilst the JFM produced good, well-estimated results. An application to the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme was considered. The JFM gave unbiased estimates of treatment effects in the presence of dependent censoring. We advocate the use of the JFM for future trials that consider recurrent events as the primary outcome. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Effect of ivabradine on numbers needed to treat for the prevention of recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Ivabradine, a specific heart rate lowering agent, was shown in the SHIFT study to reduce time to first hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF) in chronic systolic HF patients and also to reduce recurrent/total hospitalizations over the study interval. We assessed the effects of adding ivabradine in patients with systolic HF on the number needed to treat (NNT) to reduce recurrent hospitalizations. METHODS: The SHIFT trial included 6505 patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA II-IV), left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and heart rate ≥70 bpm in sinus rhythm. Patients were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo in addition to guidelines-based drug therapy. The times to first hospitalization were analyzed using a univariate Cox proportional-hazards model; the associated NNT was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time-to-event curves at 1 year in each treatment arm. Recurrent hospitalizations were analyzed using a negative binomial and the estimated annual event rates used to calculate the associated patient-time NNTs respectively. RESULTS: The estimated NNT (number needed to initiate treatment with ivabradine to prevent one first HF hospitalization within 1 year) was 27 (estimated hazard ratio: 0.75, P < 0.0001). For recurrent HF hospitalizations, one event would be prevented on average per 14 patient-years for any year of follow-up over the course of SHIFT (estimated rate ratio: 0.71, P < 0.0001). A key limitation of this analysis is that it did not account for a relationship between recurrent HF hospitalizations and subsequent mortality. CONCLUSION: In chronic systolic HF the effect of ivabradine on reducing recurrent HF hospitalizations results in a lower NNT compared to the effect on the time for first hospitalization. The effect of ivabradine on recurrent hospitalizations, in addition to first events, may be a more appropriate measure when considering the impact of a treatment with ivabradine on healthcare resource utilization.

Effect of rosuvastatin on repeat heart failure hospitalizations: the CORONA Trial (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the effect of statin therapy hospitalizations for heart failure (HFH) in patients in the CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure) trial. BACKGROUND: HFH is an important, frequently recurrent event. Conventional time-to-first event analyses do not take account repeat events. We used a number of statistical approaches to examine the effect of treatment on first and repeat HFH in the CORONA trial. METHODS: In the CORONA trial, 5,011 patients ≥60 years of age with chronic New York Heart Association functional classes II to IV systolic heart failure resulting from ischemia were randomized to receive rosuvastatin or placebo. Poisson, Andersen-Gill, and negative binomial methods (NB) were used to analyze the effect of rosuvastatin on HFH, and the NB and a parametric joint frailty model (JF) were used to examine this effect while accounting for the competing risk of cardiovascular (CV) death. Rosuvastatin/placebo rate ratios were calculated, both unadjusted and adjusted. RESULTS: A total of 1,291 patients had 1 or more HFH (750 of these had a single HFH only), and there were a total of 2,408 HFHs. The hazard ratio for the conventional time-to-first event analysis for HFH was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.02, p = 0.105). In contrast, the NB on repeat hospitalizations gave an unadjusted RR (RR) for HFH of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99, p = 0.030), adjusted 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.001), and after including CV death as the last event, adjusted RR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.94, p = 0.001). The JF gave an adjusted RR of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.92, p = 0.001). Similar results were found in analyses of all CV hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: When repeat events were included, rosuvastatin was shown to reduce the risk of HFH by approximately 15% to 20%, equating to approximately 76 fewer admissions per 1,000 patients treated over a median 33 months of follow-up. Including repeat events could increase the ability to detect treatment effects in heart failure trials.

Analysing recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure: a review of statistical methodology, with application to CHARM-Preserved.

AIMS: Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen-Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00, P = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure.

Eplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms: analysis of repeat hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Eplerenone is known to reduce time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure and mild symptoms. In chronic diseases such as heart failure, characterized by repeat hospitalizations, analyzing all heart failure hospitalizations, not just the first, should give a more complete picture of treatment benefits. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and SurvIval Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF) trial compared eplerenone with placebo in 2737 patients with mild heart failure, followed for a median 2.08 years (interquartile range, 1.08-3.10 years). Data were collected on all hospitalizations, with a focus on those due to heart failure. Heart failure hospitalization rates in the eplerenone and placebo groups were 10.70 and 16.99 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Allowing for skewness in the frequency of hospitalizations by using the negative binomial generalized linear model, the rate ratio (eplerenone versus placebo) was 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.66; P<0.0001). A plot of cumulative hospitalization rates over time revealed that most of the reduced risk on eplerenone occurred in the first year of follow-up. Several baseline variables strongly predicted the risk of hospitalization. More complex statistical methods, adjusting for mortality (as informative censoring), made a negligible difference in these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone markedly reduces the risk of heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure and mild symptoms to a greater extent than is captured by only studying the time to first hospitalization. Future clinical trials in heart failure would gain from incorporating repeat hospitalizations into their primary evaluation of treatment effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00232180.

Assessing the risk of subsequent tonic-clonic seizures in patients with a history of simple or complex partial seizures.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present with only simple or complex partial seizures have a poorly documented prognosis. Treatment may be advocated to prevent future secondary generalised seizures, reduce the frequency of further simple or complex partial seizures or a combination of both. METHODS: A full statistical analysis on 1334 patients was carried out. The outcomes measured were post-randomisation times to first seizure of any type and first tonic-clonic seizure. Methodology was adopted that accounted for individuals' underlying pre-randomisation seizure counts and allowed for the possibility that there may be a proportion of the sample that will not experience post-randomisation seizure recurrence. RESULTS: 103 subjects randomised to the MESS (Multicentre Study of Early Epilepsy and Single Seizures) study had only partial seizures at randomisation. Only 17 of these had a tonic-clonic seizure during follow-up. The presence of an abnormal EEG at randomisation influenced this risk: an estimated 23% of those with EEG abnormality were at risk of tonic-clonic seizures during follow-up compared with 16% of those with a normal EEG. The group did, however, continue to have partial seizures during follow-up, and modelling showed that the impact of treatment on these seizures was significantly less than the effects of treatment on the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures in those patients with such pre-randomisation seizures. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with a history of only partial seizures are at low risk of subsequent tonic-clonic seizures in the period of time to which therapeutic decisions are relevant. The effects of the antiepileptic drugs used in the MESS study are greater for tonic-clonic seizures than they are for partial seizures.