Cargando…

Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND: Cooling may reduce infarct size and improve neurological outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke. In phase II trials, cooling awake patients with ischaemic stroke has been shown to be feasible and safe, but the effects in functional outcomes has not yet been investigated in an adequat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Winkel, Per, Bath, Philip M., Gluud, Christian, Lindschou, Jane, van der Worp, H. Bart, Macleod, Malcolm R., Szabo, Istvan, Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle, Schwab, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5706304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29187242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2302-z
_version_ 1783282203028881408
author Winkel, Per
Bath, Philip M.
Gluud, Christian
Lindschou, Jane
van der Worp, H. Bart
Macleod, Malcolm R.
Szabo, Istvan
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Schwab, Stefan
author_facet Winkel, Per
Bath, Philip M.
Gluud, Christian
Lindschou, Jane
van der Worp, H. Bart
Macleod, Malcolm R.
Szabo, Istvan
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Schwab, Stefan
author_sort Winkel, Per
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cooling may reduce infarct size and improve neurological outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke. In phase II trials, cooling awake patients with ischaemic stroke has been shown to be feasible and safe, but the effects in functional outcomes has not yet been investigated in an adequately sized randomised clinical trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The EuroHYP-1 trial is a multinational, randomised, superiority phase III clinical trial with masked outcome assessment testing the benefits and harms of therapeutic cooling in awake adult patients with acute ischaemic stroke. The outcomes dealt with here include the primary outcome the Rankin score (mRS) at day 91 +/-14 days after randomisation. The secondary and exploratory outcomes at day 91 +/-14 days unless otherwise stated encompassing: (1) death or dependency, defined as mRS score > 2; (2) death; (3) National Institutes of Health Stroke Score; (4) brain infarct size at 48 +/-24 hours; (5) EQ-5D-5 L score, and (6) WHODAS 2.0 score. Other outcomes are: the primary safety outcome serious adverse events; and the incremental cost-effectiveness, and cost utility ratios. The analysis sets include (1) the intention-to-treat population, and (2) the per protocol population. The sample size is estimated to 800 patients (5% type 1 and 20% type 2 errors). All analyses are adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification variables (nationality of centre), and the minimisation variables. In the analysis, we use ordinal regression (the primary outcome), logistic regression (binary outcomes), general linear model (continuous outcomes), and the Poisson or negative binomial model (rate outcomes). DISCUSSION: Major adjustments compared with the original statistical analysis plan encompass: (1) adjustment of analyses by nationality; (2) power calculations for the secondary outcomes; (3) to address the multiplicity problem using of a fixed-sequence testing procedure starting with the primary outcome followed by the secondary outcomes ordered according to falling power; (4) assignment of worst possible score to patients who are not alive at the planned date of measurement of the continuous scores; (5) improved imputations; (6) outline of a supplementary exploratory analysis of the temperature measurements and time to death; and (7) substantial reduction of sample size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01833312. 4 April 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2302-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5706304
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57063042017-12-05 Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke Winkel, Per Bath, Philip M. Gluud, Christian Lindschou, Jane van der Worp, H. Bart Macleod, Malcolm R. Szabo, Istvan Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle Schwab, Stefan Trials Update BACKGROUND: Cooling may reduce infarct size and improve neurological outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke. In phase II trials, cooling awake patients with ischaemic stroke has been shown to be feasible and safe, but the effects in functional outcomes has not yet been investigated in an adequately sized randomised clinical trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The EuroHYP-1 trial is a multinational, randomised, superiority phase III clinical trial with masked outcome assessment testing the benefits and harms of therapeutic cooling in awake adult patients with acute ischaemic stroke. The outcomes dealt with here include the primary outcome the Rankin score (mRS) at day 91 +/-14 days after randomisation. The secondary and exploratory outcomes at day 91 +/-14 days unless otherwise stated encompassing: (1) death or dependency, defined as mRS score > 2; (2) death; (3) National Institutes of Health Stroke Score; (4) brain infarct size at 48 +/-24 hours; (5) EQ-5D-5 L score, and (6) WHODAS 2.0 score. Other outcomes are: the primary safety outcome serious adverse events; and the incremental cost-effectiveness, and cost utility ratios. The analysis sets include (1) the intention-to-treat population, and (2) the per protocol population. The sample size is estimated to 800 patients (5% type 1 and 20% type 2 errors). All analyses are adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification variables (nationality of centre), and the minimisation variables. In the analysis, we use ordinal regression (the primary outcome), logistic regression (binary outcomes), general linear model (continuous outcomes), and the Poisson or negative binomial model (rate outcomes). DISCUSSION: Major adjustments compared with the original statistical analysis plan encompass: (1) adjustment of analyses by nationality; (2) power calculations for the secondary outcomes; (3) to address the multiplicity problem using of a fixed-sequence testing procedure starting with the primary outcome followed by the secondary outcomes ordered according to falling power; (4) assignment of worst possible score to patients who are not alive at the planned date of measurement of the continuous scores; (5) improved imputations; (6) outline of a supplementary exploratory analysis of the temperature measurements and time to death; and (7) substantial reduction of sample size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01833312. 4 April 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2302-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5706304/ /pubmed/29187242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2302-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Update
Winkel, Per
Bath, Philip M.
Gluud, Christian
Lindschou, Jane
van der Worp, H. Bart
Macleod, Malcolm R.
Szabo, Istvan
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Schwab, Stefan
Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title_full Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title_fullStr Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title_full_unstemmed Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title_short Statistical analysis plan for the EuroHYP-1 trial: European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
title_sort statistical analysis plan for the eurohyp-1 trial: european multicentre, randomised, phase iii clinical trial of the therapeutic hypothermia plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for acute ischaemic stroke
topic Update
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5706304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29187242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2302-z
work_keys_str_mv AT winkelper statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT bathphilipm statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT gluudchristian statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT lindschoujane statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT vanderworphbart statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT macleodmalcolmr statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT szaboistvan statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT durandzaleskiisabelle statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT schwabstefan statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke
AT statisticalanalysisplanfortheeurohyp1trialeuropeanmulticentrerandomisedphaseiiiclinicaltrialofthetherapeutichypothermiaplusbestmedicaltreatmentversusbestmedicaltreatmentaloneforacuteischaemicstroke