Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach

Chis Ster A, Phillips R, Sauzet O, Cornelius V (2021)
Trials 22(1): 419.

Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
 
Download
Es wurden keine Dateien hochgeladen. Nur Publikationsnachweis!
Autor*in
Chis Ster, Anca; Phillips, Rachel; Sauzet, OdileUniBi; Cornelius, Victoria
Abstract / Bemerkung
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable information for developing harm profiles but current analysis practices to detect between-group differences are suboptimal. Drug trials routinely screen continuous clinical and biological data to monitor participant harm. These outcomes are regularly dichotomised into abnormal/normal values for analysis. Despite the simplicity gained for clinical interpretation, it is well established that dichotomising outcomes results in a considerable reduction in information and thus statistical power. We propose an automated procedure for the routine implementation of the distributional method for the dichotomisation of continuous outcomes proposed by Peacock and Sauzet, which retains the precision of the comparison of means.; METHODS: We explored the use of a distributional approach to compare differences in proportions based on the comparison of means which retains the power of the latter. We applied this approach to the screening of clinical and biological data as a means to detect 'signals' for potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Signals can then be followed-up in further confirmatory studies. Three distributional methods suitable for different types of distributions are described. We propose the use of an automated approach using the observed data to select the most appropriate distribution as an analysis strategy in a RCT setting for multiple continuous outcomes. We illustrate this approach using data from three RCTs assessing the efficacy of mepolizumab in asthma or COPD. Published reference ranges were used to define the proportions of participants with abnormal values for a subset of 10 blood tests. The between-group distributional and empirical differences in proportions were estimated for each blood test and compared.; RESULTS: Within trials, the distributions varied across the 10 outcomes demonstrating value in a practical approach to selecting the distributional method in the context of multiple adverse event outcomes. Across trials, there were three outcomes where the method chosen by the automated procedure varied for the same outcome. The distributional approach identified three signals (eosinophils, haematocrit, and haemoglobin) compared to only one when using the Fisher's exact test (eosinophils) and two identified by use of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (eosinophils and potassium).; CONCLUSION: When dichotomisation of continuous adverse event outcomes aids clinical interpretation, we advocate use of a distributional approach to retain statistical power. Methods are now easy to implement. Retaining information is especially valuable in the context of the analysis of adverse events in RCTs. The routine implementation of this automated approach requires further evaluation.
Erscheinungsjahr
2021
Zeitschriftentitel
Trials
Band
22
Ausgabe
1
Art.-Nr.
419
eISSN
1745-6215
Page URI
https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2956160

Zitieren

Chis Ster A, Phillips R, Sauzet O, Cornelius V. Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach. Trials. 2021;22(1): 419.
Chis Ster, A., Phillips, R., Sauzet, O., & Cornelius, V. (2021). Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach. Trials, 22(1), 419. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05343-0
Chis Ster, A., Phillips, R., Sauzet, O., and Cornelius, V. (2021). Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach. Trials 22:419.
Chis Ster, A., et al., 2021. Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach. Trials, 22(1): 419.
A. Chis Ster, et al., “Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach”, Trials, vol. 22, 2021, : 419.
Chis Ster, A., Phillips, R., Sauzet, O., Cornelius, V.: Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach. Trials. 22, : 419 (2021).
Chis Ster, Anca, Phillips, Rachel, Sauzet, Odile, and Cornelius, Victoria. “Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach”. Trials 22.1 (2021): 419.

Export

Markieren/ Markierung löschen
Markierte Publikationen

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

Dieser Datensatz im Web of Science®

Quellen

PMID: 34187533
PubMed | Europe PMC

Suchen in

Google Scholar