Publication Of Randomized Trials Research Articles

Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study

BackgroundTime-to-event analysis is associated with methodological complexities. Previous research identified flaws in the reporting of time-to-event analyses in randomized trial publications. These hardships impose challenges for meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes based on aggregate data. We examined the characteristics, reporting and methods of systematic reviews including such analyses.MethodsThrough a systematic search (02/2017-08/2020), we identified 50 Cochrane Reviews with ≥ 1 meta-analysis based on the hazard ratio (HR) and a corresponding random sample (n = 50) from core clinical journals (Medline; 08/02/2021). Data was extracted in duplicate and included outcome definitions, general and time-to-event specific methods and handling of time-to-event relevant trial characteristics.ResultsThe included reviews analyzed 217 time-to-event outcomes (Median: 2; IQR 1–2), most frequently overall survival (41%). Outcome definitions were provided for less than half of time-to-event outcomes (48%). Few reviews specified general methods, e.g., included analysis types (intention-to-treat, per protocol) (35%) and adjustment of effect estimates (12%). Sources that review authors used for retrieval of time-to-event summary data from publications varied substantially. Most frequently reported were direct inclusion of HRs (64%) and reference to established guidance without further specification (46%). Study characteristics important to time-to-event analysis, such as variable follow-up, informative censoring or proportional hazards, were rarely reported. If presented, complementary absolute effect estimates calculated based on the pooled HR were incorrectly calculated (14%) or correct but falsely labeled (11%) in several reviews.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that limitations in reporting of trial time-to-event analyses translate to the review level as well. Inconsistent reporting of meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes necessitates additional reporting standards.

Impact of the Thrombectomy Trials on the Management and Outcome of Large Vessel Stroke: Data From the Lyon Stroke Center.

Introduction: Randomized trials (RT) have recently validated the superiority of thrombectomy over standard medical care, including intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). However, data on their impact on routine clinical care remains scarce.Methods: Using a prospective observational registry, we assessed: (1) the clinical and radiological characteristics of all consecutive patients treated with thrombectomy; (2) the outcome of all patients with M1 occlusion (treated with thrombectomy or IVT alone). Two periods were compared: before (2013–2014) and after (2015–2016) the publication of RT.Results: Endovascular procedures significantly increased between the two periods (N = 82 vs. 314, p < 0.0001). In 2015–2016, patients were older (median [IQR]: 69 [57-80]; vs. 66 [53-74]; p = 0.008), had shorter door-to-clot times (69 [47-95]; vs. 110 [83-155]; p < 0.0001) resulting in a trend toward shorter delay from symptom onset to reperfusion (232 [185-300]; vs. 250 [200-339]; p = 0.1), with higher rates of reperfusion (71 vs. 48%; p = 0.0001). Conversely, no significant differences in baseline NIHSS scores, ASPECTS, delay to IVT or intracranial hemorrhage were found. In 2015–2016, patients with M1 occlusion were treated with thrombectomy more often than in 2013–2014 (87 vs. 32%, respectively; p < 0.0001), with a significant improvement in clinical outcome (shift analysis, lower modified Rankin scale scores: OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.10–2.57; p = 0.017).Conclusion: Following the publication of RT, thrombectomy was rapidly implemented with significant improvements in intrahospital delay and reperfusion rates. Treatment with thrombectomy increased with better clinical outcomes in patients with M1 occlusion.

Adoption of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer After Publication of Randomized Trials

Large randomized trials have established the noninferiority of shorter courses of "hypofractionated" radiation therapy (RT) to the whole breast compared to conventional courses using smaller daily doses in the adjuvant treatment of selected breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy. Hypofractionation is more convenient and less costly. Therefore, we sought to determine uptake of hypofractionated breast RT over time. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database, we identified 16,096 women with node-negative breast cancer and 4269 with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who received lumpectomy followed by more than 12 fractions of RT between 2004 and 2010. Based on Medicare claims, we determined the number of RT treatments given and grouped patients into those receiving hypofractionation (13-24) or those receiving conventional fractionation (≥25). We also determined RT technique (intensity modulated RT or not) using Medicare claims. We evaluated patterns and correlates of hypofractionation receipt using bivariate and multivariable analyses. Hypofractionation use was similar in patients with DCIS and those with invasive disease. Overall, the use of hypofractionation increased from 3.8% in 2006 to 5.4% in 2007, to 9.4% in 2008, and to 13.6% in 2009 and 2010. Multivariable analysis showed increased use of hypofractionation in recent years and in patients with older age, smaller tumors, increased comorbidity, higher regional education, and Western SEER regions. However, even in patients over the age of 80, the hypofractionation rate in 2009 to 2010 was only 25%. Use of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) also increased over time (from 9.4% in 2004 to 22.7% in 2009-2010) and did not vary significantly between patients receiving hypofractionation and those receiving traditional fractionation. Hypofractionation use increased among low-risk older US breast cancer patients with publication and maturation of evidence from randomized trials, but overall use of this cost-saving approach remained low. This contrasts with the more rapid rate of adoption of IMRT in the same time period, a costly innovation supported by less strong evidence of benefit.