Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to estimate the causal effect of one or more interventions relative to a control. One type of outcome that can be of interest in an RCT is an ordinal outcome, which is useful to answer clinical questions regarding complex and evolving patient states. The target parameter of interest for an ordinal outcome depends on the research question and the assumptions the analyst is willing to make. This review aimed to provide an overview of how ordinal outcomes have been used and analysed in RCTs.

METHODS

The review included RCTs with an ordinal primary or secondary outcome published between 2017 and 2022 in four highly ranked medical journals (the British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) identified through PubMed. Details regarding the study setting, design, the target parameter, and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome were extracted.

RESULTS

The search identified 309 studies, of which 144 were eligible for inclusion. The most used target parameter was an odds ratio, reported in 78 (54%) studies. The ordinal outcome was dichotomised for analysis in 47 ( 33 % ) studies, and the most common statistical model used to analyse the ordinal outcome on the full ordinal scale was the proportional odds model (64 [ 44 % ] studies). Notably, 86 (60%) studies did not explicitly check or describe the robustness of the assumptions for the statistical method(s) used.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review indicate that in RCTs that use an ordinal outcome, there is variation in the target parameter and the analytical approaches used, with many dichotomising the ordinal outcome. Few studies provided assurance regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome. More guidance is needed to improve the transparent reporting of the analysis of ordinal outcomes in future trials.

Clinical trials of pneumonia management assess heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments

OBJECTIVES

To inform clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of pneumonia need to address the outcomes that are most important to patients and health professionals using consistent instruments, to enable results to be compared, contrasted, and combined as appropriate. This systematic review describes the outcomes reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management and the instruments used to measure these outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on a prospective protocol, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries for ongoing or completed clinical trials evaluating pneumonia management in adults in any clinical setting. We grouped reported outcomes thematically and classified them following the COMET Initiative's taxonomy. We describe instruments used for assessing each outcome.

RESULTS

We found 280 eligible RCTs of which 115 (41.1%) enrolled critically ill patients and 165 (58.9%) predominantly noncritically ill patients. We identified 43 distinct outcomes and 108 measurement instruments, excluding nonvalidated scores and questionnaires. Almost all trials reported clinical/physiological outcomes (97.5%). Safety (63.2%), mortality (56.4%), resource use (48.6%) and life impact (11.8%) outcomes were less frequently addressed. The most frequently reported outcomes were treatment success (60.7%), mortality (56.4%) and adverse events (41.1%). There was significant variation in the selection of measurement instruments, with approximately two-thirds used in less than 10 of the 280 RCTs. None of the patient-reported outcomes were used in 10 or more RCTs.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals significant variation in outcomes and measurement instruments reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management. Outcomes that are important to patients and health professionals are often omitted. Our findings support the need for a rigorous core outcome set, such as that being developed by the European Respiratory Society.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

regCOVID: Tracking publications of registered COVID-19 studies

Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many clinical studies have been initiated leading to the need for efficient ways to track and analyze study results. We expanded our previous project that tracked registered COVID-19 clinical studies to also track result articles generated from these studies. Our objective was to develop a data science approach to identify and analyze all publications linked to COVID-19 clinical studies and generate a prioritized list of publications for efficient understanding of the state of COVID-19 clinical research.

Methods

We conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify articles linked to COVID-19 studies, and developed criteria based on the trial phase, intervention, location, and record recency to develop a prioritized list of result publications.

Results

The performed searchers resulted in 1 022 articles linked to 565 interventional trials (17.8% of all 3 167 COVID-19 interventional trials as of 31 January 2022). 609 publications were identified via abstract-link in PubMed and 413 via registry-link in ClinicalTrials.gov, with 27 articles linked from both sources. Of the 565 trials publishing at least one article, 197 (34.9%) had multiple linked publications. An attention score was assigned to each publication to develop a prioritized list of all publications linked to COVID-19 trials and 83 publications were identified that are result articles from late phase (Phase 3) trials with at least one US site and multiple study record updates. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, 108 linked result articles for 64 trials (14.7% of 436 total COVID-19 vaccine trials) were found.

Conclusions

Our method allows for the efficient identification of important COVID-19 articles that report results of registered clinical trials and are connected via a structured article-trial link. Our data science methodology also allows for consistent and as needed data updates and is generalizable to other conditions of interest.

ERS statement: a core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of COPD exacerbations

Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritised for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey completed by 1063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in five continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to 1) finalise the core outcome set and 2) prioritise a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritised outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for at all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, the need for a higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimise some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritised set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments to be burdensome for patients and health professionals to use.

The Landscape of COVID-19 Research in the United States: a Cross-sectional Study of Randomized Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov

IMPORTANCE

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19.

RESULTS

We identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.

Assessing Treatment Success or Failure as an Outcome in Randomised Clinical Trials of COPD Exacerbations. A Meta-Epidemiological Study

A recently published ERS core outcome set recommends that all trials of COPD exacerbation management should assess the treatment success (or “cure” of the exacerbation), defined as a dichotomous measure of the overall outcome of an exacerbation. This methodological systematic review describes and compares the instruments that were used to assess treatment success or failure in 54 such RCTs, published between 2006–2020. Twenty-three RCTs used composite measures consisting of several undesirable outcomes of an exacerbation, together defining an overall unfavourable outcome, to define treatment failure. Thirty-four RCTs used descriptive instruments that used qualitative or semi-quantitative descriptions to define cure, marked improvement, improvement of the exacerbation, or treatment failure. Treatment success and failure rates among patients receiving guidelines-directed treatments at different settings and timepoints are described and could be used to inform power calculations in future trials. Descriptive instruments appeared more sensitive to treatment effects compared to composite instruments. Further methodological studies are needed to optimise the evaluation of treatment success/failure. In the meantime, based on the findings of this systematic review, the ERS core outcome set recommends that cure should be defined as sufficient improvement of the signs and symptoms of the exacerbation such that no additional systemic treatments are required.