Adjustment for strong predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury trials: 25% reduction in sample size requirements in the IMPACT study.

The aim of this study was to quantify the potential reduction in sample size that can be achieved by adjustment for predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI) trials. We used individual patient data from seven therapeutic phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs; n = 6166) in moderate or severe TBI, and three TBI surveys (n = 2238). The primary outcome was the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 months (favorable/unfavorable). Baseline predictors of outcome considered were age, motor score, pupillary reactivity, computed tomography (CT) classification, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, hypoxia, hypotension, glycemia, and hemoglobin. We calculated the potential sample size reduction obtained by adjustment of a hypothetical treatment effect for one to seven predictors with logistic regression models. The distribution of predictors was more heterogeneous in surveys than in trials. Adjustment of the treatment effect for the strongest predictors (age, motor score, and pupillary reactivity) yielded a reduction in sample size of 16-23% in RCTs and 28-35% in surveys. Adjustment for seven predictors yielded a reduction of about 25% in most studies: 20-28% in RCTs and 32-39% in surveys. A major reduction in sample size can be obtained with covariate adjustment in TBI trials. Covariate adjustment for strong predictors should be incorporated in the analysis of future TBI trials.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of eicosapentaenoic acid diester in patients with cancer cachexia.

PURPOSE: Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) has been proposed to have specific anticachectic effects. This trial compared EPA diethyl ester with placebo in cachectic cancer patients for effects on weight and lean body mass. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred eighteen weight-losing patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancer were studied in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a novel preparation of pure EPA at a dose of 2 g or 4 g daily or placebo (2g EPA, n = 175; 4 g EPA, n = 172; placebo, n = 171). Patients were assessed at 4 weeks and 8 weeks. RESULTS: The groups were well balanced at baseline. Mean weight loss at baseline was 18% (n = 518). Over the 8-week treatment period, both intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis revealed no statistically significant improvements in survival, weight, or other nutritional variables. There was, however, a trend in favor of EPA with analysis of the primary end point, weight, at 8 weeks showing a borderline, nonsignificant treatment effect (P = .066). Relative to placebo, mean weight increased by 1.2 kg with 2 g EPA (95% CI, 0 kg to 2.3 kg) and by 0.3 kg with 4 g EPA (-0.9 kg to 1.5 kg). CONCLUSION: The results indicate no statistically significant benefit from single agent EPA in the treatment of cancer cachexia. Future studies should concentrate on other agents or combination regimens.

Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have shown a significant treatment benefit. We critically reviewed the use of two types of secondary analyses, covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis, which are common in TBI trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of therapeutic phase III RCTs, including adult patients with acute, moderate-to-severe TBI. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at > or =3 months as outcome, and > or =50 patients per arm were required. We compared the actual reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. Likewise, we reviewed six protocols of large multicenter RCTs and compared planned and reported subgroups. RESULTS: We identified 18 RCTs (n = 6439). Sixteen trials used GOS at 6 months as outcome. Five RCTs reported covariate adjustment. The number of covariates was limited (< or =5), most frequently including age. Many covariates were outcome predictors. Four RCTs reported only adjusted treatment effects as the main efficacy parameter. Eleven RCTs reported subgroup analyses. Several subgroup factors (< or =7, mainly outcome predictors) and outcomes (< or =4) were included. The highest total number of subgroups was 15, and only three RCTs completely pre-specified subgroups. Notably, 10 of 11 RCTs performed inappropriate separate subgroup analyses. Of 11 RCTs, 5 gave subgroups the same emphasis as the overall effect. Reported subgroup analyses were insufficiently described and clearly differed from those planned in the protocol. CONCLUSION: The reported covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses from TBI trials had several methodological shortcomings. Appropriate performance and reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis should be considerably improved in future TBI trials because interpretation of treatment benefits may be misleading otherwise.

Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy.

The conventional approach to the analysis of a Phase III trial in head injury or stroke takes an ordered scale measuring functional outcome and collapses the scale to a binary outcome of favorable versus unfavorable. This discards potentially relevant information which limits statistical power and moreover is not in accord with clinical practice. We propose an alternative approach where a favorable outcome is defined as better than would be expected, taking account of each individual patient's baseline prognosis. This is illustrated through a worked example based on data from a Phase III trial in head injury. The approach is also compared with the proportional odds model, which is another statistical approach that can exploit an ordered outcome scale. The approach raises issues of clinical, statistical, and regulatory importance, and we initiate what we believe needs to become a widespread debate amongst the community involved in clinical research in head injury and stroke.