Brennan C Kahan

Intrapleural Use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator and DNase in Pleural Infection

BACKGROUND More than 30% of patients with pleural infection either die or require surgery. Drainage of infected fluid is key to successful treatment, but intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy did not improve outcomes in an earlier, large, randomized trial. METHODS We conducted a blinded, 2-by-2 factorial trial in which 210 patients with pleural infection were randomly assigned to receive one of four study treatments for 3 days: double placebo, intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and DNase, t-PA and placebo, or DNase and placebo. The primary outcome was the change in pleural opacity, measured as the percentage of the hemithorax occupied by effusion, on chest radiography on day 7 as compared with day 1. Secondary outcomes included referral for surgery, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events. RESULTS The mean (±SD) change in pleural opacity was greater in the t-PA-DNase group than in the placebo group (-29.5±23.3% vs. -17.2±19.6%; difference, -7.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -2.4; P=0.005); the change observed with t-PA alone and with DNase alone (-17.2±24.3 and -14.7±16.4%, respectively) was not significantly different from that observed with placebo. The frequency of surgical referral at 3 months was lower in the t-PA-DNase group than in the placebo group (2 of 48 patients [4%] vs. 8 of 51 patients [16%]; odds ratio for surgical referral, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87; P=0.03) but was greater in the DNase group (18 of 46 patients [39%]) than in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.30 to 9.75; P=0.01). Combined t-PA-DNase therapy was associated with a reduction in the hospital stay, as compared with placebo (difference, -6.7 days; 95% CI, -12.0 to -1.9; P=0.006); the hospital stay with either agent alone was not significantly different from that with placebo. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly among the groups. CONCLUSIONS Intrapleural t-PA-DNase therapy improved fluid drainage in patients with pleural infection and reduced the frequency of surgical referral and the duration of the hospital stay. Treatment with DNase alone or t-PA alone was ineffective. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant to the University of Oxford from Roche UK and by others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN57454527.).

Effect of an Indwelling Pleural Catheter vs Chest Tube and Talc Pleurodesis for Relieving Dyspnea in Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion: The TIME2 Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Malignant pleural effusion causes disabling dyspnea in patients with a short life expectancy. Palliation is achieved by fluid drainage, but the most effective first-line method has not been determined. OBJECTIVE To determine whether indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are more effective than chest tube and talc slurry pleurodesis (talc) at relieving dyspnea. DESIGN Unblinded randomized controlled trial (Second Therapeutic Intervention in Malignant Effusion Trial [TIME2]) comparing IPC and talc (1:1) for which 106 patients with malignant pleural effusion who had not previously undergone pleurodesis were recruited from 143 patients who were treated at 7 UK hospitals. Patients were screened from April 2007-February 2011 and were followed up for a year. INTERVENTION Indwelling pleural catheters were inserted on an outpatient basis, followed by initial large volume drainage, education, and subsequent home drainage. The talc group were admitted for chest tube insertion and talc for slurry pleurodesis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Patients completed daily 100-mm line visual analog scale (VAS) of dyspnea over 42 days after undergoing the intervention (0 mm represents no dyspnea and 100 mm represents maximum dyspnea; 10 mm represents minimum clinically significant difference). Mean difference was analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for minimization variables. RESULTS Dyspnea improved in both groups, with no significant difference in the first 42 days with a mean VAS dyspnea score of 24.7 in the IPC group (95% CI, 19.3-30.1 mm) and 24.4 mm (95% CI, 19.4-29.4 mm) in the talc group, with a difference of 0.16 mm (95% CI, −6.82 to 7.15; P = .96). There was a statistically significant improvement in dyspnea in the IPC group at 6 months, with a mean difference in VAS score between the IPC group and the talc group of −14.0 mm (95% CI, −25.2 to −2.8 mm; P = .01). Length of initial hospitalization was significantly shorter in the IPC group with a median of 0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 0-1 day) and 4 days (IQR, 2-6 days) for the talc group, with a difference of −3.5 days (95% CI, −4.8 to −1.5 days; P < .001). There was no significant difference in quality of life. Twelve patients (22%) in the talc group required further pleural procedures compared with 3 (6%) in the IPC group (odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86; P = .03). Twenty-one of the 52 patients in the catheter group experienced adverse events vs 7 of 54 in the talc group (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.75-12.60; P = .002). CONCLUSION Among patients with malignant pleural effusion and no previous pleurodesis, there was no significant difference between IPCs and talc pleurodesis at relieving patient-reported dyspnea. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN87514420.

A no-prophylaxis platelet-transfusion strategy for hematologic cancers.

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding in patients with hematologic cancers remains unclear. This trial assessed whether a policy of not giving prophylactic platelet transfusions was as effective and safe as a policy of providing prophylaxis. METHODS We conducted this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial at 14 centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, or not to receive, prophylactic platelet transfusions when morning platelet counts were less than 10×10(9) per liter. Eligible patients were persons 16 years of age or older who were receiving chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation and who had or were expected to have thrombocytopenia. The primary end point was bleeding of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4 up to 30 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 600 patients (301 in the no-prophylaxis group and 299 in the prophylaxis group) underwent randomization between 2006 and 2011. Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2; P=0.06 for noninferiority). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).

Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation

Many clinical trials restrict randomisation using stratified blocks or minimisation to balance prognostic factors across treatment groups. It is widely acknowledged in the statistical literature that the subsequent analysis should reflect the design of the study, and any stratification or minimisation variables should be adjusted for in the analysis. However, a review of recent general medical literature showed only 14 of 41 eligible studies reported adjusting their primary analysis for stratification or minimisation variables. We show that balancing treatment groups using stratification leads to correlation between the treatment groups. If this correlation is ignored and an unadjusted analysis is performed, standard errors for the treatment effect will be biased upwards, resulting in 95% confidence intervals that are too wide, type I error rates that are too low and a reduction in power. Conversely, an adjusted analysis will give valid inference. We explore the extent of this issue using simulation for continuous, binary and time-to-event outcomes where treatment is allocated using stratified block randomisation or minimisation.

Predicting survival in malignant pleural effusion: development and validation of the LENT prognostic score

Background Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) causes debilitating breathlessness and predicting survival is challenging. This study aimed to obtain contemporary data on survival by underlying tumour type in patients with MPE, identify prognostic indicators of overall survival and develop and validate a prognostic scoring system. Methods Three large international cohorts of patients with MPE were used to calculate survival by cell type (univariable Cox model). The prognostic value of 14 predefined variables was evaluated in the most complete data set (multivariable Cox model). A clinical prognostic scoring system was then developed and validated. Results Based on the results of the international data and the multivariable survival analysis, the LENT prognostic score (pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and tumour type) was developed and subsequently validated using an independent data set. Risk stratifying patients into low-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups gave median (IQR) survivals of 319 days (228–549; n=43), 130 days (47–467; n=129) and 44 days (22–77; n=31), respectively. Only 65% (20/31) of patients with a high-risk LENT score survived 1 month from diagnosis and just 3% (1/31) survived 6 months. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating curve revealed the LENT score to be superior at predicting survival compared with ECOG PS at 1 month (0.77 vs 0.66, p<0.01), 3 months (0.84 vs 0.75, p<0.01) and 6 months (0.85 vs 0.76, p<0.01). Conclusions The LENT scoring system is the first validated prognostic score in MPE, which predicts survival with significantly better accuracy than ECOG PS alone. This may aid clinical decision making in this diverse patient population.

Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis

Objectives To assess how often stratified randomisation is used, whether analysis adjusted for all balancing variables, and whether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, and to reanalyse a previously reported trial to assess the impact of ignoring balancing factors in the analysis. Design Review of published trials and reanalysis of a previously reported trial. Setting Four leading general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and the second Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST2). Participants 258 trials published in 2010 in the four journals. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-randomised, single arm, and phase I or II trials were excluded, as were trials reporting secondary analyses, interim analyses, or results that had been previously published in 2010. Main outcome measures Whether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, how often balanced randomisation was used, and whether balancing factors were adjusted for in the analysis. Results Reanalysis of MIST2 showed that an unadjusted analysis led to larger P values and a loss of power. The review of published trials showed that balanced randomisation was common, with 163 trials (63%) using at least one balancing variable. The most common methods of balancing were stratified permuted blocks (n=85) and minimisation (n=27). The method of randomisation was unclear in 37% of trials. Most trials that balanced on centre or prognostic factors were not adequately analysed; only 26% of trials adjusted for all balancing factors in their primary analysis. Trials that did not adjust for balancing factors in their analysis were less likely to show a statistically significant result (unadjusted 57% v adjusted 78%, P=0.02). Conclusion Balancing on centre or prognostic factors is common in trials but often poorly described, and the implications of balancing are poorly understood. Trialists should adjust their primary analysis for balancing factors to obtain correct P values and confidence intervals and to avoid an unnecessary loss in power.

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial

BACKGROUND Transfusion thresholds for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding are controversial. So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have been done. Findings from the single-centre trial showed reduced mortality with restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We aimed to assess whether a multicentre, cluster randomised trial is a feasible method to substantiate or refute this finding. METHODS In this pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, done in six university hospitals in the UK, we enrolled all patients aged 18 years or older with new presentations of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, irrespective of comorbidity, except for exsanguinating haemorrhage. We randomly assigned hospitals (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (random permuted block size of 6, without stratification or matching) to either a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L) or liberal (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 100 g/L) RBC transfusion policy. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, protocol adherence, haemoglobin concentration, RBC exposure, selection bias, and information to guide design and economic evaluation of the phase 3 trial. Main exploratory clinical outcomes were further bleeding and mortality at day 28. We did analyses on all enrolled patients for whom an outcome was available. This trial is registered, ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532. FINDINGS Between Sept 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, we enrolled 936 patients across six hospitals (403 patients in three hospitals with a restrictive policy and 533 patients in three hospitals with a liberal policy). Recruitment rate was significantly higher for the liberal than for the restrictive policy (62% vs 55%; p=0·04). Despite some baseline imbalances, Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% (SD 10) in the restrictive policy vs 83% (25) in the liberal policy (difference 14%; 95% CI 7-21; p=0·005). Mean last recorded haemoglobin concentration was 116 (SD 24) g/L for patients on the restrictive policy and 118 (20) g/L for those on the liberal policy (difference -2·0 [95% CI -12·0 to 7·0]; p=0·50). Fewer patients received RBCs on the restrictive policy than on the liberal policy (restrictive policy 133 [33%] vs liberal policy 247 [46%]; difference -12% [95% CI -35 to 11]; p=0·23), with fewer RBC units transfused (mean 1·2 [SD 2·1] vs 1·9 [2·8]; difference -0·7 [-1·6 to 0·3]; p=0·12), although these differences were not significant. We noted no significant difference in clinical outcomes. INTERPRETATION A cluster randomised design led to rapid recruitment, high protocol adherence, separation in degree of anaemia between groups, and non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion in the restrictive policy. A large cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is both feasible and essential before clinical practice guidelines change to recommend restrictive transfusion for all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. FUNDING NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.

The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies

BackgroundAdjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice.MethodsWe used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic.ResultsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%.ConclusionsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered.

Mortality from acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the United kingdom: does it display a "weekend effect"?

OBJECTIVES:An increased mortality in patients presenting to hospital at weekends has been observed for several medical conditions. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between weekend presentation to hospital following acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality.METHODS:Data were collected on 6,749 patients presenting to 212 UK hospitals. A logistic regression model was used to examine the relationship between weekend presentation to hospital and mortality.RESULTS:Patients presenting at the weekend were more likely to present with shock (39% vs. 36%), hematemesis (41% vs. 38%), and receive red cell transfusion (42% vs. 39%). Only 38% of those presenting at weekends underwent endoscopy within 24 h compared with 55% admitted on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.41–0.54), although the proportion of all patients receiving endoscopic therapy was identical at weekends compared with weekdays (24%). After adjustment for confounders, there was no evidence of a difference between weekend and weekday mortality (OR=0.93; 95% CI=0.75–1.16). Similar results were seen when restricting the analysis to those patients who underwent endoscopy (n=5,004) (OR=0.87, 95% CI=0.65–1.16). There was no difference in the OR for mortality for weekend compared with weekday presentation between patients presenting to hospitals with an out-of-hours (OOH) endoscopy rota compared with those presenting to hospitals without such a facility.CONCLUSIONS:In this large prospective study of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the United Kingdom, there was no increase in mortality for weekend vs. weekday presentation despite patients being more critically ill and having greater delays to endoscopy at weekends. Provision of an OOH endoscopy service at weekends in the remaining UK hospitals may not lead to further reductions in case fatality, although a reduction in OOH endoscopy provision from current levels could lead to an increase in mortality at weekends.

Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials

BackgroundRecent reviews have shown that while clustering is extremely common in individually randomised trials (for example, clustering within centre, therapist, or surgeon), it is rarely accounted for in the trial analysis. Our aim is to develop a general framework for assessing whether potential sources of clustering must be accounted for in the trial analysis to obtain valid type I error rates (non-ignorable clustering), with a particular focus on individually randomised trials.MethodsA general framework for assessing clustering is developed based on theoretical results and a case study of a recently published trial is used to illustrate the concepts. A simulation study is used to explore the impact of not accounting for non-ignorable clustering in practice.ResultsClustering is non-ignorable when there is both correlation between patient outcomes within clusters, and correlation between treatment assignments within clusters. This occurs when the intraclass correlation coefficient is non-zero, and when the cluster has been used in the randomisation process (e.g. stratified blocks within centre) or when patients are assigned to clusters after randomisation with different probabilities (e.g. a surgery trial in which surgeons treat patients in only one arm). A case study of an individually randomised trial found multiple sources of clustering, including centre of recruitment, attending surgeon, and site of rehabilitation class. Simulations show that failure to account for non-ignorable clustering in trial analyses can lead to type I error rates over 20% in certain cases; conversely, adjusting for the clustering in the trial analysis gave correct type I error rates.ConclusionsClustering is common in individually randomised trials. Trialists should assess potential sources of clustering during the planning stages of a trial, and account for any sources of non-ignorable clustering in the trial analysis.