Odile Sauzet

A novel diagnostic tool for chronic obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction—the eustachian tube score.

The purpose of this study was to introduce a new tool for the diagnosis of chronic obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) and as a follow‐up tool for eustachian tube therapy using objective and subjective elements.

Dichotomising continuous data while retaining statistical power using a distributional approach.

Dichotomisation of continuous data is known to be hugely problematic because information is lost, power is reduced and relationships may be obscured or changed. However, not only are differences in means difficult for clinicians to interpret, but thresholds also occur in many areas of medical practice and cannot be ignored. In recognition of both the problems of dichotomisation and the ways in which it may be useful clinically, we have used a distributional approach to derive a difference in proportions with a 95% CI that retains the precision and the power of the CI for the equivalent difference in means. In this way, we propose a dual approach that analyses continuous data using both means and proportions to replace dichotomisation alone and that may be useful in certain situations. We illustrate this work with examples and simulations that show good performance of the parametric approach under standard distributional assumptions from our own research and from the literature.

Adverse event reporting in randomised controlled trials of neuropathic pain: considerations for future practice.

Summary Improving adverse event reporting and developing standardize methods for collection of data will facilitate comparisons of information across trials of neuropathic pain. ABSTRACT High‐quality information on the potential benefit and harm of a drug is required for patients and clinicians to make informed treatment decisions and to enable cost‐effectiveness modeling to be undertaken. This systematic review describes the collection and reporting of adverse event data as presented in published clinical trials of neuropathic pain for the evaluation of antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs. A total of 74 studies in 16,323 patients published between 1965 and 2012 were identified, of which 43 were published from 2004 onwards. The review found that methods used to collect adverse event data, the frequency of collection, and the selection criteria used by authors for reporting adverse events vary substantially, and these events are often inadequately reported. Consequently, a potential synthesis of valuable harm information across trials is hampered. We make recommendations regarding the reporting of methods used to collect, assess, select, and present adverse event data in publications. Through the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, core outcome sets (which include effectiveness and harm) are developed by disease condition. To facilitate data synthesis for adverse events of drug therapies, we suggest that core outcome sets for harms could be developed by therapeutic class (ie, individualized for each class of drug). To improve comparability of information across trials collection methods need to be standardized for patient reports (spontaneous or prompted) and active surveillance (clinical examinations and laboratory tests). Uniform methods for presenting summary information regarding recurrent events, duration and timing of events requires further research.

Illustration of the Weibull Shape Parameter Signal Detection Tool Using Electronic Healthcare Record Data

BackgroundThe WSP tool has previously been proposed as a method to detect signals for adverse drug reactions utilising time-to-event data without the need for a reference population. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the tool on two well-known and two suspected adverse drug reactions for bisphosphonates that varied in both frequency and accuracy of reporting time.MethodsThe use of the WSP tool was investigated on data from a matched population cohort study involving data from UK primary care patients exposed to oral bisphosphonates. Four listed/suspected ADRs were selected for investigation: headache, musculoskeletal pain, alopecia and carpal tunnel syndrome. For each suspected ADR, a graphical exploratory analysis was performed and the WSP tool was applied for two censoring periods each.ResultsBoth of the well-known and common ADRs (headache and musculoskeletal pain) were detected using the WSP tool, and the signals were present regardless of the censoring intervals used. A signal was also detected when the event was uncommon and the timing was likely to be an accurate reflection of onset time (alopecia). This signal was only present for some of the censoring intervals. As anticipated, no signals were raised in the control groups for these events regardless of the censoring interval used. The suspected ADR, which was uncommon and where reporting times may not reflect onset time accurately (carpal tunnel syndrome), was not detected. A signal was raised in the control group but its false-positive nature was visible in the exploratory graphical analysis, which led to it (frequent but for only a limited number of consecutive dates).ConclusionThis study illustrates the usability and examines the reliability of the WSP tool as a method for signal detection in electronic health records. When the events are uncommon the success of this method may depend on the reporting time accurately reflecting the true event onset time. The study has shown that further work is required to define the censoring periods. The addition of a control group is not required but may enhance causal inference by showing that other causes than the exposure may lead to a signal.

Evaluation of tubomanometry as a routine diagnostic tool for chronic obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the reliability of tubomanometry (TMM) described by Estéve in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive Eustachian tube (ET) dysfunction.

A Signal Detection Method to Detect Adverse Drug Reactions Using a Parametric Time-to-Event Model in Simulated Cohort Data

AbstractBackground: Current quantitative signal detection methods have been primarily developed for the purpose of detecting signals from spontaneous reports. These methods are not always appropriate for cohort data. More recently, parametric time-to-event models have been proposed to model hazard functions with the ultimate aim of detecting adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The rate of occurrence of ADRs after starting a drug will depend upon the causal mechanism and therefore will often vary with time, in contrast to events not associated with the drug, which will tend to occur at a constant background rate. After starting treatment, the onset of ADRs will be rapid for some but delayed for others. A non-constant rate over time may indicate a drug-event relationship. Objective: The aim of this study was to propose a simple test to detect signals of ADRs in cohort data and to investigate the power of this test using simulated data. A signal detection tool using the proposed test to improve the power of detection is also described. Method: In order to test for a non-constant hazard (rate of occurrence), the hazard function was estimated using the model shape parameter for the Weibull function. If the shape parameter was found to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from the value one (the value for a constant hazard) a signal was raised. Simulation of background event rates used were 1%, 5% and 10% of the cohort size. The ADR rate was varied in proportion to the background rate; a 10%, 20% and 50% increase in the background rate was explored. The time of occurrence of the ADR will dictate the shape of the hazard function, therefore the ability of the model to detect a signal depending when the highest risk for ADR was also explored. The power of the test was investigated by simulation. Results: The Weibull Shape Parameter (WSP) test was most powerful at detecting signals that occur shortly after starting treatment. These preliminary simulations had low power when the underlying hazard function was symmetrical (e.g. when ADRs occurred in the middle of the study period). The power of the test was improved by censoring the data as this broke the symmetry of the hazard function. A tool that censored the data at regular intervals and repeated the WSP test was found to correctly detect ADR or no ADR around 90% of the time when the sample size was at least 5000. Conclusion: The WSP test is simple to implement using standard statistical software, and can be used to detect non-constant hazards over time in order to raise signals of time-dependent ADRs. When there is no pre-specified event of interest or the time of the ADR is uncertain, the WSP tool should be used instead of the WSP test. These methods do not require any external data for comparative purposes and thus can be implemented in a single cohort of participants exposed to a drug.

Adverse event reporting in randomised trials of neuropathic pain: challenges for clinical usefulness of safety data

Background Monitoring the safety of therapies is of paramount importance in protecting patients from harm and enabling risk-benefit assessment. The recording and reporting of measures of efficacy has received considerable attention and while by no means perfect, has advanced further than the parallel assessment of harm. The stimulus for this study came from a commissioned effectiveness and cost-effectiveness review of treatments for neuropathic pain in patients (the CEAN study) [1]. CEAN noted that the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting varied between trials and some expert opinion was required where primary data were insufficient for modeling cost-effectiveness. Further, clinicians indicated that trials sometimes failed to provide adequate information for clinical decision-making and informing patients.

The Characteristics and Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Neuropathic Pain A Descriptive Study Based on a Systematic Review

Background:Evidence from randomized controlled trials is regarded as the gold standard in clinical research and yet the quality of the conduct and reporting of trials is variable, even post-Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. This study arose from a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment for neuropathic pain. The aim was to provide a description of the included trials and investigate trends in study characteristics and measures of quality over time. Methods:The review provided data regarding study characteristics (patients, place, time, drugs, outcomes), methodological factors (sample size calculations, randomization, reporting baseline patient data, withdrawals, intention-to-treat (ITT), and statistical analysis (completeness and correctness of reporting of results, methods of analysis). Results:A total of 131 trials from 1969 to 2007 were included. Of these, 63% were parallel-group designs, the remainder were cross-over; 73% were placebo-controlled. Several trial features increased or improved over time: trial size, quality (using Jadad score), presentation of baseline data by group, reporting of power calculations, use of visual analogue score or numerical rating scale scales to assess pain, completeness of reporting of statistical results, use of modeling to allow for baseline pain scores. The proportion of withdrawals was constant over time with a mean of 14.3%. The proportion of studies stating the analysis as ITT, increased over time, but inspection of papers indicated that the proportion confirmed as ITT was unchanged. Conclusions:There have been a number of improvements regarding the quality and reporting of randomized controlled trials in neuropathic pain, but some failings remain that at best make some results difficult to interpret and at worst lead to bias.

Towards a pain free hospital: an in-depth qualitative analysis of the pain experiences of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

Background: Treatment for head and neck cancer can frequently be a painful experience with implications for patients in terms of quality of life, nutrition and ultimately treatment outcomes. Pain may arise for a number of reasons in this patient group including the influence of localised tissue damage from radiotherapy, the effects of chemotherapeutic agents as well as the disease process itself. Early identification of cancer pain, through screening and early analgesic and pain management are thought to be the most appropriate approaches to the problem. Aim: To explore in-depth, patients’ views of the experience of pain related to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, within the context of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of pain screening and intervention. Sample: A purposive sample of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy who were participating in a separate RCT of a proactive pain screening intervention. Methods: A qualitative design using one-off, face-to-face, in-depth interviews. Data were inductively analysed for themes using thematic analysis. Data were collected from September 2012 to January 2013. Findings: Eight participants were interviewed. Several issues around pain management arose and the influence of various factors became apparent. Four dominant themes emerged: facets of radiotherapy pain in head and neck cancer, facilitators and barriers to pain management, pain services and finally interdisciplinary working. Conclusion: The specific issues faced by head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy highlight the need for pain relieving interventions delivered by pain specialists, in tandem with the development of robust self-management strategies. An integrated approach to care is optimal, comprising pain screening at each outpatient encounter, and review by specialists as necessary.

Routine screening for pain combined with a pain treatment protocol in head and neck cancer: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND We compared the effectiveness and cost of a pain screening and treatment program, with usual care in head and neck cancer patients with significant pain. METHODS Patients were screened for the presence of pain and then randomly assigned to either an intervention group, consisting of a pain treatment protocol and an education program, or to usual care. Primary outcome was change in the Pain Severity Index (PSI) over three months. RESULTS We screened 1074 patients of whom 156 were randomized to either intervention or usual care. Mean PSI was reduced over three months in both groups, with no significant difference between the two groups. The Pain Management Index (PMI) at three months, was significantly improved in the intervention group compared with usual care (P<0.001), as was Patient Satisfaction (mean difference in scores was statistically significant: -0.30 [-0.60 to -0.15]). All subjects reported clinically significant levels of anxiety and depression throughout the study. Treatment costs were significantly higher for intervention (mean=£400) compared with usual care (£200), with a low likelihood of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS There was no difference in the Pain Severity Index between the two groups. However there were significant improvements in the intervention group in patient satisfaction and PMI. The pain screening process itself was effective. Sufficient benefit was demonstrated as a result of the intervention to allow continued development of pain treatment pathways, rather than allowing pain treatment to be left to nonformalised ad hoc arrangements.