Dataset Information

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a ratio of relative risks (RRRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events, and the primary analysis was a matched comparison of clinical trials using a run-in period versus without a run-in period. We identified 66 run-in trials and 111 non-run-in trials (n=668 901). On meta-analysis there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of treatment effect between run-in trials (relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]) compared with non-run-in trials (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]). There was no significant difference in the RRR for secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (RRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91-1.03]) or medication discontinuation because of adverse events (RRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]). Post hoc exploratory univariate meta-regression showed that on average a run-in period is associated with a statistically significant difference in treatment effect (RRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]) for cardiovascular composite outcome, but this was not statistically significant on multivariable meta-regression analysis (RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]). Conclusions The use of a run-in period was not associated with a difference in the magnitude of treatment effect among cardiovascular prevention trials.

SUBMITTER: Murphy RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9673681 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Murphy Robert P RP O'Donnell Martin J MJ Nolan Aoife A McGrath Emer E O'Conghaile Aengus A Ferguson John J Alvarez-Iglesias Alberto A Costello Maria M Loughlin Elaine E Reddin Catriona C Ruttledge Sarah S Gorey Sarah S Hughes Diarmaid D Smyth Andrew A Canavan Michelle M Judge Conor C

Journal of the American Heart Association 20221017 20

Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a r ...[more]

PMID: 36250666

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly identification of participants at risk of run-in failure (RIF) may present opportunities to improve trial efficiency and generalizability.MethodsWe conducted a partial factorial-design, randomized, controlled trial of calcium and vitamin D to prevent colorectal adenoma recurrence at 11 centers in the United States. At baseline, participants completed two self-administered questionnaires (SAQs) and a questionnaire administered by staff. Participants in the full factorial randomization (calcium, vitamin D, both, or neither) received a placebo during a 3-month single-blinded run-in; women electing to take calcium enrolled in a two-group randomization (calcium with vitamin D, or calcium alone) and received calcium during the run-in. Using logistic regression models, we examined baseline factors associated with RIF in three subgroups: men (N = 1606) and women (N = 301) in the full factorial randomization and women in the two-group randomization (N = 666).ResultsOverall, 314/2573 (12 %) participants failed run-in; 211 (67 %) took fewer than 80 % of their tablets (poor adherence), and 103 (33 %) withdrew or were uncooperative. In multivariable models, 8- to 13-fold variation was seen by study center in odds of RIF risk in the two largest groups. In men, RIF decreased with age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 5 years 0.85 [95 % confidence interval, CI; 0.76-0.96]) and was associated with being single (OR 1.65 [95 % CI; 1.10-2.47]), not graduating from high school (OR 2.77 [95 % CI; 1.58-4.85]), and missing SAQ data (OR 1.97 [1.40-2.76]). Among women, RIF was associated primarily with health-related factors; RIF risk was lower with higher physical health score (OR 0.73 [95 % CI; 0.62-0.86]) and baseline multivitamin use (OR 0.44 [95 % CI; 0.26-0.75]). Women in the 5-year colonoscopy surveillance interval were at greater risk of RIF than those with 3-year follow-up (OR 1.91 [95 % CI; 1.08-3.37]), and the number of prescription medicines taken was also positively correlated with RIF (p = 0.03). Perceived toxicities during run-in were associated with 12- to 29-fold significantly increased odds of RIF.ConclusionsThere were few common baseline predictors of run-in failure in the three randomization groups. However, heterogeneity in run-in failure associated with study center, and missing SAQ data reflect potential opportunities for intervention to improve trial efficiency and retention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00153816 . Registered September 2005.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding aims to minimize biases from what participants and investigators know or believe. Randomized controlled trials, despite being the gold standard to evaluate treatment effect, do not generally assess the success of blinding. We investigated the extent of blinding in back pain trials and the associations between participant guesses and treatment effects.MethodsWe did a review with PubMed/OvidMedline, 2000-2019. Eligibility criteria were back pain trials with data available on treatment effect and participants' guess of treatment. For blinding, blinding index was used as chance-corrected measure of excessive correct guess (0 for random guess). For treatment effects, within- or between-arm effect sizes were used. Analyses of investigators' guess/blinding or by treatment modality were performed exploratorily.ResultsForty trials (3899 participants) were included. Active and sham treatment groups had mean blinding index of 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.41) and 0.01 (-0.11, 0.14), respectively, meaning 26% of participants in active treatment believed they received active treatment, whereas only 1% in sham believed they received sham treatment, beyond chance, that is, random guess. A greater belief of receiving active treatment was associated with a larger within-arm effect size in both arms, and ideal blinding (namely, "random guess," and "wishful thinking" that signifies both groups believing they received active treatment) showed smaller effect sizes, with correlation of effect size and summary blinding indexes of 0.35 (p = 0.028) for between-arm comparison. We observed uniformly large sham treatment effects for all modalities, and larger correlation for investigator's (un)blinding, 0.53 (p = 0.046).ConclusionParticipants in active treatments in back pain trials guessed treatment identity more correctly, while those in sham treatments tended to display successful blinding. Excessive correct guesses (that could reflect weaker blinding and/or noticeable effects) by participants and investigators demonstrated larger effect sizes. Blinding and sham treatment effects on back pain need due consideration in individual trials and meta-analyses.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of randomized controlled trials using auricular stimulation (AS) such as transauricular vagus nerve stimulation, or other auricular electrostimulation or auricular acupuncture or acupressure, in experimental and clinical settings, has increased markedly over the last three decades. This systematic review focusses on cardiovascular effects of auricular stimulation.Methods and analysisThe following databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, and Scopus Database. RCTs were reviewed that had been published in English and European languages. Data collection and analysis was conducted by two reviewers independently. Quality and risk assessment of included studies was performed and the meta-analysis of the effect of the most frequently assessed biomarkers.ResultsAltogether, 78 trials were included. 38 studies assessed heart rate (HR), 19 studies analyzed heart rate variability (HRV), 31 studies analyzed blood pressure (BP) and 7 studies were identified that measured oxygen saturation (O2), 2 studies on baroreflex sensitivity and 2 studies on skin conductance were evaluated in this review. 26 studies contained continuous data and were eligible for meta-analysis, 50 trials reported non continuous data and were evaluated descriptively. The overall quality of the studies was moderate to low. AS leads to a significant reduction of HR, the changes though were not considered an adverse reaction. Furthermore, when looking at HRV, AS was able to reduce the LF/HF ratio significantly compared to control procedures. No other cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, oxygen saturation, baroreflex sensitivity) were changed significantly. AS produced only minor side effects in all trials.ConclusionAS can lead to clinically safe reduction of HR and changes in the LF/HF ratio of the HRV, which is presumably via an increase in vagal activity. More research is needed to clarify whether AS can be used to modulate tachycardia or indications with autonomic imbalance.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=231885 PROSPERO, ID CRD42021231885.

Project description:ImportanceCancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.ObjectiveTo estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.Data sourcesA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.Study selectionMammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.Data extraction and synthesisSearches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.ResultsIn total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

Dataset Information

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Publications

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets