Level of evidence for promising subgroup findings: The case of trends and multiple subgroups.

Subgroup analyses are an essential part of fully understanding the complete results from confirmatory clinical trials. However, they come with substantial methodological challenges. In case no statistically significant overall treatment effect is found in a clinical trial, this does not necessarily indicate that no patients will benefit from treatment. Subgroup analyses could be conducted to investigate whether a treatment might still be beneficial for particular subgroups of patients. Assessment of the level of evidence associated with such subgroup findings is primordial as it may form the basis for performing a new clinical trial or even drawing the conclusion that a specific patient group could benefit from a new therapy. Previous research addressed the overall type I error and the power associated with a single subgroup finding for continuous outcomes and suitable replication strategies. The current study aims at investigating two scenarios as part of a nonconfirmatory strategy in a trial with dichotomous outcomes: (a) when a covariate of interest is represented by ordered subgroups, eg, in case of biomarkers, and thus, a trend can be studied that may reflect an underlying mechanism, and (b) when multiple covariates, and thus multiple subgroups, are investigated at the same time. Based on simulation studies, this paper assesses the credibility of subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant trials and provides practical recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence of subgroup findings in these settings.

Pharyngeal electrical stimulation for early decannulation in tracheotomised patients with neurogenic dysphagia after stroke (PHAST-TRAC): a prospective, single-blinded, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia after stroke is common, especially in severely affected patients who have had a tracheotomy. In a pilot trial, pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) improved swallowing function in this group of patients. We aimed to replicate and extend this single-centre experience. METHODS: We did a prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across nine sites (seven acute care hospitals, two rehabilitation facilities) in Germany, Austria, and Italy. Patients with recent stroke who required tracheotomy were randomly assigned to receive 3 days of either PES or sham treatment (1:1). All patients had the stimulation catheter inserted; sham treatment was applied by connecting the PES base station to a simulator box instead of the catheter. Randomisation was done via a computerised interactive system (stratified by site) in blocks of four patients per site. Patients and investigators applying PES were not masked. The primary endpoint was assessed by a separate investigator at each site who was masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was readiness for decannulation 24-72 h after treatment, assessed using fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and based on a standardised protocol, including absence of massive pooling of saliva, presence of one or more spontaneous swallows, and presence of at least minimum laryngeal sensation. We planned a sequential statistical analysis of superiority for the primary endpoint. Interim analyses were to be done after primary outcome data were available for 50 patients (futility), 70 patients, and every additional ten patients thereafter, up to 140 patients. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN18137204. FINDINGS: From May 29, 2015, to July 5, 2017, of 81 patients assessed, 69 patients from nine sites were randomly assigned to receive PES (n=35) or sham (n=34) treatment. Median onset to randomisation time was 28 days (IQR 19-41; PES 28 [20-49]; sham 28 [18-40]). The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended that the trial was stopped early for efficacy after 70 patients had been recruited and primary endpoint data for 69 patients were available. This decision was approved by the steering committee. More patients were ready for decannulation in the PES group (17 [49%] of 35 patients) than in the sham group (three [9%] of 34 patients; odds ratio [OR] 7·00 [95% CI 2·41-19·88]; p=0·0008). Adverse events were reported in 24 (69%) patients in the PES group and 24 (71%) patients in the sham group. The number of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ between the groups (ten [29%] patients in the PES group vs eight [23%] patients in the sham group; OR 1·30 [0·44-3·83]; p=0·7851). Seven (20%) patients in the PES group and three (9%) patients in the sham group died during the study period (OR 2·58 [0·61-10·97]; p=0·3059). None of the deaths or serious adverse events were judged to be related to PES. INTERPRETATION: In patients with stroke and subsequent tracheotomy, PES increased the proportion of patients who were ready for decannulation in this study population, many of whom received PES within a month of their stroke. Future trials should confirm whether PES is beneficial in tracheotomised patients who receive stimulation similarly early after stroke and explore its effects in other cohorts. FUNDING: Phagenesis Ltd.

Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We wished to compare the nuisance parameters of pediatric vs. adult randomized-trials (RCTs) and determine if the latter can be used in sample size computations of the former. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation we examined meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic-Reviews, with at least one pediatric-RCT and at least one adult-RCT. Within each meta-analysis of binary efficacy-outcomes, we calculated the pooled-control-group event-rate (CER) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials, using random-effect models and subsequently calculated the control-group event-rate risk-ratio (CER-RR) of the pooled-pediatric-CERs vs. adult-CERs. Within each meta-analysis with continuous outcomes we calculated the pooled-control-group effect standard deviation (CE-SD) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials and subsequently calculated the CE-SD-ratio of the pooled-pediatric-CE-SDs vs. adult-CE-SDs. We then calculated across all meta-analyses the pooled-CER-RRs and pooled-CE-SD-ratios (primary endpoints) and the pooled-magnitude of effect-sizes of CER-RRs and CE-SD-ratios using REMs. A ratio < 1 indicates that pediatric trials have smaller nuisance parameters than adult trials. RESULTS: We analyzed 208 meta-analyses (135 for binary-outcomes, 73 for continuous-outcomes). For binary outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 10% smaller CERs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98). For mortality outcomes the summary-CE-RR was 0.48 (95% CIs: 0.31, 0.74). For continuous outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 26% smaller CE-SDs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-SD-ratio: 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant differences in nuisance parameters between pediatric and adult trials were detected. These differences have implications for design of future studies. Extrapolation of nuisance parameters for sample-sizes calculations from adult-trials to pediatric-trials should be cautiously done.

Sequential designs with small samples: Evaluation and recommendations for normal responses.

Sequential monitoring is a well-known methodology for the design and analysis of clinical trials. Driven by the lower expected sample size, recent guidelines and published research suggest the use of sequential methods for the conduct of clinical trials in rare diseases. However, the vast majority of the developed and most commonly used sequential methods relies on asymptotic assumptions concerning the distribution of the test statistics. It is not uncommon for trials in (very) rare diseases to be conducted with only a few decades of patients and the use of sequential methods that rely on large-sample approximations could inflate the type I error probability. Additionally, the setting of a rare disease could make the traditional paradigm of designing a clinical trial (deciding on the sample size given type I and II errors and anticipated effect size) irrelevant. One could think of the situation where the number of patients available has a maximum and this should be utilized in the most efficient way. In this work, we evaluate the operational characteristics of sequential designs in the setting of very small to moderate sample sizes with normally distributed outcomes and demonstrate the necessity of simple corrections of the critical boundaries. We also suggest a method for deciding on an optimal sequential design given a maximum sample size and some (data driven or based on expert opinion) prior belief on the treatment effect.

Dynamic borrowing through empirical power priors that control type I error.

In order for historical data to be considered for inclusion in the design and analysis of clinical trials, prospective rules are essential. Incorporation of historical data may be of particular interest in the case of small populations where available data is scarce and heterogeneity is not as well understood, and thus conventional methods for evidence synthesis might fall short. The concept of power priors can be particularly useful for borrowing evidence from a single historical study. Power priors employ a parameter γ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] that quantifies the heterogeneity between the historical study and the new study. However, the possibility of borrowing data from a historical trial will usually be associated with an inflation of the type I error. We suggest a new, simple method of estimating the power parameter suitable for the case when only one historical dataset is available. The method is based on predictive distributions and parameterized in such a way that the type I error can be controlled by calibrating to the degree of similarity between the new and historical data. The method is demonstrated for normal responses in a one or two group setting. Generalization to other models is straightforward.

Electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes versus endoscopic placement: a randomized, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Electromagnetic-guided placement (EMP) of a nasoduodenal feeding tube by trained nurses is an attractive alternative to EGD-guided placement (EGDP). We aimed to compare EMP and EGDP in outpatients, ward patients, and critically ill patients with normal upper GI anatomy. METHODS: In 3 centers with no prior experience in EMP, patients were randomized to placement of a single-lumen nasoduodenal feeding tube either with EGDP or EMP. The primary endpoint was post-pyloric position of the tube on abdominal radiography. Patients were followed for 10 days to assess patency and adverse events. The analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients were randomized to EGDP (N = 76) or EMP (N = 84). Three patients withdrew informed consent, and no abdominal radiography was performed in 2 patients. Thus, 155 patients (59 intensive care unit, 38%) were included in the analyses. Rates of post-pyloric tube position between EGDP and EMP were comparable (79% vs 82%, odds ratio 1.16; 90% confidence interval, 0.58-2.38; P = .72). Adverse events were observed in 4 patients after EMP (hypoxia, GI blood loss, atrial fibrillation, abdominal pain) and in 4 after EGDP (epistaxis N = 2, GI blood loss, hypoxia). Costs of tube placements were lower for EMP compared with EGDP: $519.09 versus $622.49, respectively (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Success rates and safety of EMP and EGDP in patients with normal upper GI anatomy were comparable. Lower costs and potential logistic advantages may drive centers to adopt EMP as their new standard of care. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR4286.).

European regulatory use and impact of subgroup evaluation in marketing authorisation applications.

Marketing authorisation application dossiers relating to medicinal products containing new active substances and evaluated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) over the period 2012-2015 were examined. Major objections and other concerns relating to efficacy and safety of the day 80 assessment reports were reviewed. Overall, approved products have more subgroup concerns than nonapproved products, which seems to be a consistent pattern. Subgroup analyses are mainly assessed to have the insurance that subgroups of patients that might lack a positive benefit: risk ratio will not be wrongly included in the approved treatment indication.

Estimates of subgroup treatment effects in overall nonsignificant trials: To what extent should we believe in them?

In drug development, it sometimes occurs that a new drug does not demonstrate effectiveness for the full study population but appears to be beneficial in a relevant subgroup. In case the subgroup of interest was not part of a confirmatory testing strategy, the inflation of the overall type I error is substantial and therefore such a subgroup analysis finding can only be seen as exploratory at best. To support such exploratory findings, an appropriate replication of the subgroup finding should be undertaken in a new trial. We should, however, be reasonably confident in the observed treatment effect size to be able to use this estimate in a replication trial in the subpopulation of interest. We were therefore interested in evaluating the bias of the estimate of the subgroup treatment effect, after selection based on significance for the subgroup in an overall "failed" trial. Different scenarios, involving continuous as well as dichotomous outcomes, were investigated via simulation studies. It is shown that the bias associated with subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant clinical trials is on average large and varies substantially across plausible scenarios. This renders the subgroup treatment estimate from the original trial of limited value to design the replication trial. An empirical Bayesian shrinkage method is suggested to minimize this overestimation. The proposed estimator appears to offer either a good or a conservative correction to the observed subgroup treatment effect hence provides a more reliable subgroup treatment effect estimate for adequate planning of future studies.

Positive predictive value of ELISpot in BAL and pleural fluid from patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) of ELISpot in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and pleural fluid for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis (TB) in real-life clinical practice, together with the added value of a cut-off >1.0 for the ratio between the extra-sanguineous and systemic interferon-gamma responses in positive samples. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre study was performed. Patients with positive ELISpot in BAL and pleural fluid were included. RESULTS: The PPV for TB in patients with positive ELISpot in BAL (n = 40) was 64.9%, which increased to 82.6% for the ESAT-6 panel and 71.4% for the CFP-10 panel after the introduction of a cut-off >1.0 for the ratio between the BAL and blood interferon-gamma responses. In patients with positive ELISpot in pleural fluid (n = 16), the PPV for TB was 85.7%, which increased to 91.7% for the ESAT-6 panel and 92.3% for the CFP-10 panel after the introduction of a cut-off >1.0 for the ratio between the pleural fluid and blood interferon-gamma responses. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the PPV of ELISpot in BAL and pleural fluid for the diagnosis of active TB in real-life clinical practice. The results indicate the possibility of an increase of the PPV using a cut-off >1.0 for the ratio between the extra-sanguineous and systemic interferon-gamma responses. Further studies are needed to underline this ratio-approach and to evaluate the full diagnostic accuracy of ELISpot in extra-sanguineous fluids like BAL and pleural fluid.

Design and implementation of Pharyngeal electrical Stimulation for early de-cannulation in TRACheotomized (PHAST-TRAC) stroke patients with neurogenic dysphagia: a prospective randomized single-blinded interventional study.

Rationale Ongoing dysphagia in stroke patients weaned from mechanical ventilation often requires long-term tracheotomy to protect the airway from aspiration. In a recently reported single-centre pilot study, a significantly larger proportion (75%) of tracheotomized dysphagic stroke patients regained sufficient control of airway management allowing tracheotomy tube removal (decannulation) 24-72 h after pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) compared to controls who received standard therapy over the same time period (20%). Aim To assess the safety and efficacy of PES in accelerating dysphagia rehabilitation and enabling decannulation of tracheotomized stroke patients. Design International multi-centre prospective randomized controlled single-blind trial in approximately 126 ICU patients (the 90th percentile of the calculated maximum sample size). Study outcomes Primary outcome: proportion of stroke patients considered safe for decannulation 24-72 h after PES compared to control patients who do not receive PES. Key secondary outcomes focus on: dysphagia severity, decannulation rates, decannulation rate after a repeat PES treatment in patients persistently dysphagic after an initial PES treatment, stroke severity, duration of ICU-stay, occurrence of adverse events including pneumonia and need for recannulation over 30 days or until hospital discharge (if earlier). Discussion Dysphagia and related airway complications are reported as one of the main reasons for stroke patients remaining tracheotomized once successfully weaned from ventilation. This study will evaluate if PES can improve airway safety sufficiently enough to allow earlier tracheotomy tube removal.

Simultaneous sequential monitoring of efficacy and safety led to masking of effects.

OBJECTIVE: Usually, sequential designs for clinical trials are applied on the primary (=efficacy) outcome. In practice, other outcomes (e.g., safety) will also be monitored and influence the decision whether to stop a trial early. Implications of simultaneous monitoring on trial decision making are yet unclear. This study examines what happens to the type I error, power, and required sample sizes when one efficacy outcome and one correlated safety outcome are monitored simultaneously using sequential designs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a simulation study in the framework of a two-arm parallel clinical trial. Interim analyses on two outcomes were performed independently and simultaneously on the same data sets using four sequential monitoring designs, including O'Brien-Fleming and Triangular Test boundaries. Simulations differed in values for correlations and true effect sizes. RESULTS: When an effect was present in both outcomes, competition was introduced, which decreased power (e.g., from 80% to 60%). Futility boundaries for the efficacy outcome reduced overall type I errors as well as power for the safety outcome. CONCLUSION: Monitoring two correlated outcomes, given that both are essential for early trial termination, leads to masking of true effects. Careful consideration of scenarios must be taken into account when designing sequential trials. Simulation results can help guide trial design.

Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that treatment effects may not be homogeneous across the study population. Subgroup analyses constitute a fundamental step in the assessment of evidence from confirmatory (Phase III) clinical trials, where conclusions for the overall study population might not hold. Subgroup analyses can have different and distinct purposes, requiring specific design and analysis solutions. It is relevant to evaluate methodological developments in subgroup analyses against these purposes to guide health care professionals and regulators as well as to identify gaps in current methodology. METHODS: We defined four purposes for subgroup analyses: (1) Investigate the consistency of treatment effects across subgroups of clinical importance, (2) Explore the treatment effect across different subgroups within an overall non-significant trial, (3) Evaluate safety profiles limited to one or a few subgroup(s), (4) Establish efficacy in the targeted subgroup when included in a confirmatory testing strategy of a single trial. We reviewed the methodology in line with this "purpose-based" framework. The review covered papers published between January 2005 and April 2015 and aimed to classify them in none, one or more of the aforementioned purposes. RESULTS: In total 1857 potentially eligible papers were identified. Forty-eight papers were selected and 20 additional relevant papers were identified from their references, leading to 68 papers in total. Nineteen were dedicated to purpose 1, 16 to purpose 4, one to purpose 2 and none to purpose 3. Seven papers were dedicated to more than one purpose, the 25 remaining could not be classified unambiguously. Purposes of the methods were often not specifically indicated, methods for subgroup analysis for safety purposes were almost absent and a multitude of diverse methods were developed for purpose (1). CONCLUSIONS: It is important that researchers developing methodology for subgroup analysis explicitly clarify the objectives of their methods in terms that can be understood from a patient's, health care provider's and/or regulator's perspective. A clear operational definition for consistency of treatment effects across subgroups is lacking, but is needed to improve the usability of subgroup analyses in this setting. Finally, methods to particularly explore benefit-risk systematically across subgroups need more research.

Results of ENHANCED Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Programming to Reduce Therapies and Improve Quality of Life (from the ENHANCED-ICD Study).

Novel implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) discrimination algorithms and programming strategies have significantly reduced the incidence of inappropriate shocks, but there are still gains to be made with respect to reducing appropriate but unnecessary antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and shocks. We examined whether programming a number of intervals to detect (NID) of 60/80 for ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) detection was safe and the impact of this strategy on (1) adverse events related to ICD shocks and syncopal events; (2) ATPs/shocks; and (3) patient-reported outcomes. The "ENHANCED Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator programming to reduce therapies and improve quality of life" study (ENHANCED-ICD study) was a prospective, safety-monitoring study enrolling 60 primary and secondary prevention patients at the University Medical Center Utrecht. Patients implanted with any type of ICD with SmartShock technology and aged 18 to 80 years were eligible to participate. In all patients, a prolonged NID 60/80 was programmed. The cycle length for VT/fast VT/VF was 360/330/240 ms, respectively. Programming a NID 60/80 proved safe for ICD patients. Because of the new programming strategy, unnecessary ICD therapy was prevented in 10% of ENHANCED-ICD patients during a median follow-up period of 1.3 years. With respect to patient-reported outcomes, levels of distress were highest and perceived health status lowest at the time of implantation, which both gradually improved during follow-up. In conclusion, the ENHANCED-ICD study demonstrates that programming a NID 60/80 for VT/VF detection is safe for ICD patients and does not negatively impact their quality of life.

The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design.

BACKGROUND: Various papers have addressed pros and cons of the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design (SWD). However, some issues have not or only limitedly been addressed. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of all merits and limitations of the SWD to assist researchers, reviewers and medical ethics committees when deciding on the appropriateness of the SWD for a particular study. METHODS: We performed an initial search to identify articles with a methodological focus on the SWD, and categorized and discussed all reported advantages and disadvantages of the SWD. Additional aspects were identified during multidisciplinary meetings in which ethicists, biostatisticians, clinical epidemiologists and health economists participated. All aspects of the SWD were compared to the parallel group cluster randomized design. We categorized the merits and limitations of the SWD to distinct phases in the design and conduct of such studies, highlighting that their impact may vary depending on the context of the study or that benefits may be offset by drawbacks across study phases. Furthermore, a real-life illustration is provided. RESULTS: New aspects are identified within all disciplines. Examples of newly identified aspects of an SWD are: the possibility to measure a treatment effect in each cluster to examine the (in)consistency in effects across clusters, the detrimental effect of lower than expected inclusion rates, deviation from the ordinary informed consent process and the question whether studies using the SWD are likely to have sufficient social value. Discussions are provided on e.g. clinical equipoise, social value, health economical decision making, number of study arms, and interim analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Deciding on the use of the SWD involves aspects and considerations from different disciplines not all of which have been discussed before. Pros and cons of this design should be balanced in comparison to other feasible design options as to choose the optimal design for a particular intervention study.

Cognitive consequences of early versus late antiepileptic drug withdrawal after pediatric epilepsy surgery, the TimeToStop (TTS) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The goals of intentional curative pediatric epilepsy surgery are to achieve seizure-freedom and antiepileptic drug (AED) freedom. Retrospective cohort studies have indicated that early postoperative AED withdrawal unmasks incomplete surgical success and AED dependency sooner, but not at the cost of long-term seizure outcome. Moreover, AED withdrawal seemed to improve cognitive outcome. A randomized trial is needed to confirm these findings. We hypothesized that early AED withdrawal in children is not only safe, but also beneficial with respect to cognitive functioning. DESIGN: This is a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial to investigate whether early AED withdrawal improves cognitive function, in terms of attention, executive function and intelligence, quality of life and behavior, and to confirm safety in terms of eventual seizure freedom, seizure recurrences and "seizure and AED freedom." Patients will be randomly allocated in parallel groups (1:1) to either early or late AED withdrawal. Randomization will be concealed and stratified for preoperative IQ and medical center. In the early withdrawal arm reduction of AEDs will start 4 months after surgery, while in the late withdrawal arm reduction starts 12 months after surgery, with intended complete cessation of drugs after 12 and 20 months respectively. Cognitive outcome measurements will be performed preoperatively, and at 1 and 2 years following surgery, and consist of assessment of attention and executive functioning using the EpiTrack Junior test and intelligence expressed as IQ (Wechsler Intelligence Scales). Seizure outcomes will be assessed at 24 months after surgery, and at 20 months following start of AED reduction. We aim to randomize 180 patients who underwent anticipated curative epilepsy surgery below 16 years of age, were able to perform the EpiTrack Junior test preoperatively, and have no predictors of poor postoperative seizure prognosis (multifocal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities, incomplete resection of the lesion, epileptic postoperative electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities, or more than three AEDs at the time of surgery). DISCUSSION: Growing experience with epilepsy surgery has changed the view towards postoperative medication policy. In a European collaboration, we designed a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing early with late AED withdrawal to investigate benefits and safety of early AED withdrawal. The TTS trial is supported by the Dutch Epilepsy Fund (NL 08-10) ISRCTN88423240/ 08/05/2013.

An Application of Sequential Meta-Analysis to Gene Expression Studies.

Most of the discoveries from gene expression data are driven by a study claiming an optimal subset of genes that play a key role in a specific disease. Meta-analysis of the available datasets can help in getting concordant results so that a real-life application may be more successful. Sequential meta-analysis (SMA) is an approach for combining studies in chronological order while preserving the type I error and pre-specifying the statistical power to detect a given effect size. We focus on the application of SMA to find gene expression signatures across experiments in acute myeloid leukemia. SMA of seven raw datasets is used to evaluate whether the accumulated samples show enough evidence or more experiments should be initiated. We found 313 differentially expressed genes, based on the cumulative information of the experiments. SMA offers an alternative to existing methods in generating a gene list by evaluating the adequacy of the cumulative information.

The Effect of Online Hemodiafiltration on Infections: Results from the CONvective TRAnsport STudy.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis (HD) patients have a high risk of infections. The uremic milieu has a negative impact on several immune responses. Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) may reduce the risk of infections by ameliorating the uremic milieu through enhanced clearance of middle molecules. Since there are few data on infectious outcomes in HDF, we compared the effects of HDF with low-flux HD on the incidence and type of infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data of the 714 HD patients (age 64 ±14, 62% men, 25% Diabetes Mellitus, 7% catheters) participating in the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST), a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of HDF as compared to low-flux HD. The events were adjudicated by an independent event committee. The risk of infectious events was compared with Cox regression for repeated events and Cox proportional hazard models. The distributions of types of infection were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Thirty one percent of the patients suffered from one or more infections leading to hospitalization during the study (median follow-up 1.96 years). The risk for infections during the entire follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment arms (HDF 198 and HD 169 infections in 800 and 798 person-years respectively, hazard ratio HDF vs. HD 1.09 (0.88-1.34), P = 0.42. No difference was found in the occurrence of the first infectious event (either fatal, non-fatal or type specific). Of all infections, respiratory infections (25% in HDF, 28% in HD) were most common, followed by skin/musculoskeletal infections (21% in HDF, 13% in HD). CONCLUSIONS: HDF as compared to HD did not result in a reduced risk of infections, larger studies are needed to confirm our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00205556.

Effect of repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with no-option limb ischemia: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Rejuvenating Endothelial Progenitor Cells via Transcutaneous Intra-arterial Supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe limb ischemia may not be eligible for conventional therapeutic interventions. Pioneering clinical trials suggest that bone marrow-derived cell therapy enhances neovascularization, improves tissue perfusion, and prevents amputation. The objective of this trial was to determine whether repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) in patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia can prevent major amputation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Rejuvenating Endothelial Progenitor Cells via Transcutaneous Intra-arterial Supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 160 patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia. Patients were randomly assigned to repetitive (3 times; 3-week interval) intra-arterial infusion of BMMNC or placebo. No significant differences were observed for the primary outcome, ie, major amputation at 6 months, with major amputation rates of 19% in the BMMNC versus 13% in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-3.42). The safety outcome (all-cause mortality, occurrence of malignancy, or hospitalization due to infection) was not significantly different between the groups (relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-3.38), neither was all-cause mortality at 6 months with 5% versus 6% (relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-2.80). Secondary outcomes quality of life, rest pain, ankle-brachial index, and transcutaneous oxygen pressure improved during follow-up, but there were no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive intra-arterial infusion of autologous BMMNCs into the common femoral artery did not reduce major amputation rates in patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia in comparison with placebo. The general improvement in secondary outcomes during follow-up in both the BMMNC and the placebo group, as well, underlines the essential role for placebo-controlled design of future trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00371371.

Primary Care Triple P for parents of NICU graduates with behavioral problems: a randomized, clinical trial using observations of parent-child interaction.

BACKGROUND: Preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children show more emotional and behavioral problems at preschool age than term-born children without a medical condition. It is uncertain whether parenting intervention programs aimed at the general population, are effective in this specific group. In earlier findings from the present trial, Primary Care Triple P was not effective in reducing parent-reported child behavioral problems. However, parenting programs claim to positively change child behavior through enhancement of the parent-child interaction. Therefore, we investigated whether Primary Care Triple P is effective in improving the quality of parent-child interaction and increasing the application of trained parenting skills in parents of preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born preschoolers with behavioral problems. METHODS: For this pragmatic, open randomized clinical trial, participants were recruited from a cohort of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care units of two Dutch hospitals. Children aged 2-5 years, with a gestational age <32 weeks and/or birth weight <1500 g and children with a gestational age 37-42 weeks and perinatal asphyxia were included. After screening for a t-score ≥60 on the Child Behavior Checklist, children were randomly assigned to Primary Care Triple P (n = 34) or a wait-list control group (n = 33). Trial outcomes were the quality of parent-child interaction and the application of trained parenting skills, both scored from structured observation tasks. RESULTS: There was no effect of the intervention on either of the observational outcome measures at the 6-month trial endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Triple P, is not effective in improving the quality of parent-child interaction nor does it increase the application of trained parenting skills in parents of preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children with behavioral problems. Further research should focus on personalized care for these parents, with an emphasis on psychological support to reduce stress and promote self-regulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2179 . Registered 26 January 2010.

Sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in an ICU: a systematic review.

At the design stage of a clinical trial, several assumptions have to be made. These usually include guesses about parameters that are not of direct interest but must be accounted for in the analysis of the treatment effect and also in the sample size calculation (nuisance parameters, e.g. the standard deviation or the control group event rate). We conducted a systematic review to investigate the impact of misspecification of nuisance parameters in pediatric randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed. We included all publications concerning two-arm RCTs where efficacy assessment was the main objective. We included trials with pharmacological interventions. Only trials with a dichotomous or a continuous outcome were included. This led to the inclusion of 70 articles describing 71 trials. In 49 trial reports a sample size calculation was reported. Relative misspecification could be calculated for 28 trials, 22 with a dichotomous and 6 with a continuous primary outcome. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] overestimation was 6.9 [-12.1, 57.8]% for the control group event rate in trials with dichotomous outcomes and -1.5 [-15.3, 5.1]% for the standard deviation in trials with continuous outcomes. Our results show that there is room for improvement in the clear reporting of sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in ICUs. Researchers should be aware of the importance of nuisance parameters in study design and in the interpretation of the results.