Statistical issues related to early closure of STOP-ROP, a group-sequential trial

Vitamin E and preterm infants

In evaluating vitamin E (VE) nutritional status of preterm infants, it is essential that any data should be compared with those of healthy term infants, and never with those of adults. Moreover, it should be evaluated in terms of gestational age (GA), not birth weight (BW), because placental transfer of most nutrients from mother to fetus is dependent on GA, not BW. Judging from the limited data during the last 75 years, there was no significant correlation between GA and VE concentrations in circulation or in the red blood cells (RBCs), leukocytes, and buccal mucosal cells. In addition, the oxidizability of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in plasma or RBCs, as targets for protection by VE chain-breaking ability, was lower in preterm infants. However, because of the minimal information available about hepatic VE levels, which is considered a key determinant of whole body VE status, the decision on whether VE status of preterm infants is comparable with that of term infants should be postponed. Clinical trials of VE supplementation in preterm infants were repeatedly undertaken to investigate whether VE reduces severity or inhibits development of several diseases specific to preterm infants, namely retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and germinal matrix hemorrhage - intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH). Most of these trials resulted in a misfire, with a few exceptions for IVH prevention. However, almost all these studies were performed from 1980s to early 1990s, in the pre-surfactant era, and the study populations were composed of mid-preterm infants with GAs of approximately 30 weeks (wks). There is considerable difference in 'preterm infants' between the pre- and post-surfactant eras; modern neonatal medicine mainly treats preterm infants of 28 wks GA or less. Therefore, these results are difficult to apply in modern neonatal care. Before considering new trials of VE supplementation, we should fully understand modern neonatal medicine, especially the recent method of oxygen supplementation. Additionally, a deeper understanding of recent progress in pathophysiology and therapies for possible target diseases is necessary to decide whether VE administration is still worth re-challenging in modern neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). In this review, we present recent concepts and therapeutic trends in ROP, BPD, and GMH-IVH for those unfamiliar with neonatal medicine. Numerous studies have reported the possible involvement of reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced damage in relation to supplemental oxygen use, inflammation, and immature antioxidant defense in the development of both BPD and ROP. Various antioxidants effectively prevented the exacerbation of BPD and ROP in animal models. In the future, VE should be re-attempted as a complementary factor in combination with various therapies for BPD, ROP, and GMH-IVH. Because VE is a natural and safe supplement, we are certain that it will attract attention again in preterm medicine.

Influence of prior assignment on refusal rates in a trial of supplemental oxygen for retinopathy of prematurity

Investigators aware of prior treatment assignments may deliberately or subliminally influence rates of subsequent consent in randomised trials, thus introducing the possibility of bias. As a trial of Supplemental Therapeutic Oxygen for Prethreshold Retinopathy of Prematurity (STOP-ROP) was not masked to health professionals other than ophthalmologists, this possibility was evaluated by comparing the incidence of refusal to participate in relation to the previous assignment. Over 5 years, the STOP-ROP trial enrolled 649 infants, while 394 eligible subjects refused. Enrolled infants were assigned to supplemental oxygen or control groups at 30 centres including 71 hospitals, and stratified into two severity strata of their retinopathy of prematurity. We studied whether the assignment of the previously enrolled infant to either the supplemental arm or the control arm of the study affected the incidence of refusal to participate in the study by the next eligible infant. We also evaluated the possibility that refusal based on the preceding assignment could have influenced either the baseline balance of eye severity and pulmonary status between the two arms of the study or the final outcome of the randomised trial. There was a significantly higher incidence of refusal if the prior enrollee had been assigned to the supplemental oxygen group (44%) as compared with the control group (34%, P = 0.004). This effect from the prior assignment was larger in the later half of the study. Irrespective of the prior enrollee's assignment, refusal was more likely for more mature infants and those with milder baseline disease. Selection bias did not influence the ophthalmic or pulmonary findings at baseline, or the study outcomes. In incompletely masked studies, monitoring the distribution of refusers in relation to the previous assignment can reveal selection bias. Despite evidence of unequal refusal rates, the results of the STOP-ROP trial were not affected.