Making Randomized Clinical Trials Seem Less Random Andrew P.J. Olson, MD Assistant Professor Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics University of Minnesota Medical School olso5714@umn.edu Disclosures • I have no financial interests to disclose. • I will not discuss off label or investigational product use. Learning Objectives • Identify a framework for analyzing RCT’s in the learning environment • Discuss major sources of bias in RCT’s • Define validity and generalizability and be able to begin to assess these in real-world article. • Use these skills in a small group environment $ Agenda • • • • • Overview of RCT’s Randomization Blinding Outcome measurement Analysis – Intention to treat? Let’s start with a roadmap. RCT Roadmap Randomization Outcome Treatment Follow-up Population People at risk for heart attacks 1000 Statins 25 heart attacks 1000 Placebo 50 heart attacks Sample Randomization is Key • By randomizing subjects to different groups, both known (measured) and unknown (unmeasured) variables should be randomly distributed. • This controls for known and unknown confounding variables What is Confounding? • A confounding variable is associated with the receipt of treatment and the outcome. • Statin trial: – Smoking, exercise, hypertension medications Validity and Generalizability • Validity: In the studied population, was the study performed in a way that the results are valid? • Generalizability: Are these results applicable to my patients? Elements of a Randomized Controlled Trial Element Best Case Scenario (Described in paper) Validity or Generalizability Subject Selection Recruitment Procedures and Entrance Criteria specified Generalizability Randomization Random Sequence Allocation Concealment Validity Treatment Feasible, safe, delineated Generalizability Element Best Case Scenario (Described in paper) Validity or Generalizability Follow up Complete (all accounted for) and similar between groups Validity Co-intervention Same between groups and relevant co-interventions described Validity Blinding Subjects, Providers, and Outcome assessors Validity Element Outcomes Analysis and Power Best Case Scenario (Described in paper) Validity or Generalizability Measurable? Validity Meaningful? Generalizability Intention to treat? Validity Adequately powered? Validity Statistical Methods described and appropriate? Validity Randomized Controlled Trials • Overview of RCT’s • Randomization • Blinding • Outcome measurement • Analysis – Intention to treat? Randomization • Is the randomization of a subject to a group really random? – If allocation is truly random, it cannot be predicted – Random number table or generator – Examples of non-random allocation: • • • • Even or odd MRN Days of the week Morning or afternoon patients First patient the day Randomization Allocation Concealment • The sequence of allocation to different groups cannot be seen by subjects or providers • Examples: – Sealed, opaque envelopes – Central voice-response system – Online systems Randomized Controlled Trials • Overview of RCT’s • Randomization • Blinding • Outcome measurement • Analysis – Intention to treat? Blinding • Ideally, the only difference between groups is the treatment (which no one knows about!) • Triple Blinding is Ideal – No one knows the treatment group allocation • Provider • Subject • Outcomes assessor • Blinding protects against bias from: – Different receipt of co-interventions between groups – Differential outcome ascertainment Co-interventions 60% take aspirin Population People at risk for heart attacks 1000 Statins 25 heart attacks 1000 Placebo 50 heart attacks Sample 30% take aspirin Co-interventions • By not knowing which group a subject is assigned to, subjects in different groups should be treated the same • Neither those giving or receiving treatment know the assignment Blinding in Treatment Studies Blinding Randomization Outcome Treatment Follow-up Population People at risk for heart attacks 1000 Statins 25 heart attacks 1000 Placebo 50 heart attacks Sample In treatment studies, it is usually necessary to have a placebo or sham procedure Blinding • If subjects and providers are unaware of which group the patient is allocated to, cointerventions should be the same on average • Differences in co-interventions, if there is proper randomization and blinding, will be due to chance. Don’t forget about the third blind team member! • Subjects and Providers can be difficult to blind, especially with certain treatments • However, those who are analyzing the outcomes can almost always be blinded – Analysis of medical records – If they know the group assignment, their view of an outcome can be biased Randomization and Blinding Randomization Outcome Treatment Follow-up Population Treatment A # Events Treatment B # Events Sample Similar at baseline? Similar during followup? Randomized Controlled Trials • • • • • Overview of RCT’s Randomization Blinding Outcome measurement Analysis – Intention to treat? Outcomes • Outcomes are prespecified – Measurable - Validity – Meaningful – Generalizability • Easily measurable: – Mortality, MI, cancer recurrence, blood pressure, lipids • Less easily measured: – Quality of life, pain, disability – Validated tool? • Meaningful: – Do they matter to a patient? Surrogate Outcomes • Sometimes a meaningful outcome is difficult to measure: – Time for followup, hard to quantify • So a surrogate outcome is used: – FDA Definition: • A laboratory measurement or physical sign that is used as a substitute for a clinically meaningful outcome because it is expected to predict the effect of therapy on a clinically meaningful outcome. Surrogate Outcome Population Treatment A Surrogate # Events Treatment B Surrogate # Events Sample Surrogate Outcome ↑Harm Treatment ↑Surrogate Treatment ↓Surrogate No Change Events An Example of Surrogate Outcomes • There is significant mortality from arrhythmias after myocardial infarctions • PVC’s can be a marker of arrhythmias • Antiarrhythmic medications decrease PVC’s • Thus, it makes sense that using antiarrhythmic medications after myocardial infarctions might decrease mortality A Classic Example of Surrogate Outcomes CAST Trial Cardiac Mortality All Cause Mortality Randomized Controlled Trials • • • • • Overview of RCT’s Randomization Blinding Outcome measurement Analysis – Intention to treat? Intention to Treat Analysis 5000 Patients Screened 1000 Randomized 500 Metoprolol 23 withdraw consent 14 lost to followup 22 stop taking medicine 500 Placebo ? Outcome Outcome 10withdraw consent 4 lost to followup 13 stop taking medicine Intention to Treat • All randomized subjects are included in the analysis, regardless of actual receipt of treatment • This means some subjects who didn’t get the intervention are still included in the analysis • Preserves the randomization Intention to Treat • All subjects should be able to be accounted for while you read the paper – High rate of participation – Few are “lost to followup” • If a subject is lost to followup: – Search for vital statistics – Perform advanced analyses to determine what probably happened to these subjects • Most importantly, patients must NOT be removed from the study in a non-random way! Small Group Activity Small Group Activity • Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized? • Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? • Except for the allocated treatment, were the groups treated equally? • Were all patients who entered the trial accounted for and were they analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? • Were the measures objective? • Were the patients and clinicians kept blind to which treatment was being received? • How large was the treatment effect? • How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? • Will the results help me in caring for my patients?