scholarly journals INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP): Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for an investigator-initiated international meta-trial of randomised studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank van Haren ◽  
Alice Richardson ◽  
Jin Yoon ◽  
Antonio Artigas ◽  
John Laffey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unfractionated Heparin ◽  
Mammalian Cells ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Statistical Analysis Plan ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale that warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential in patients with COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis. Methods and intervention The INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP) meta-trial is a prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are being conducted in multiple countries. Participating studies randomise adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome for the meta-trial is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have additional outcomes. Analysis We use a Bayesian approach to monitoring, followed by analysing individual patient data, outcomes and adverse events. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle, considering all participants in the treatment group to which they were assigned, except for cases lost to follow-up or withdrawn. Trial registration, ethics and dissemination The meta-trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04635241. Each contributing study is individually registered and has received approval of the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board.

scholarly journals INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP): Protocol for an investigator-initiated international meta-trial of randomised studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank van Haren ◽  
Alicia Vilaseca ◽  
Ruben Barbera ◽  
Tarek Ismail ◽  
Rabab Mahrous ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unfractionated Heparin ◽  
Mammalian Cells ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
Scientific Meetings ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Introduction Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale and warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential for COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis. Methods and intervention This meta-trial is a prospective collaborative individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are conducted in multiple countries. Adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, are randomised to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have specific outcome measures in addition to the core set. Ethics and dissemination: The meta-trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT04635241. Results of this study will be shared with the WHO, published in scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings.

scholarly journals The effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytics in patients with acute intracranial haemorrhage: statistical analysis plan for an individual patient data meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Katharine Ker ◽  
David Prieto-Merino ◽  
Nikola Sprigg ◽  
Abda Mahmood ◽  
Philip Bath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Intracranial Haemorrhage ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Analysis Plan ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Time To Treatment ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Introduction: The Antifibrinolytic Trialists Collaboration aims to increase knowledge about the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic treatment by conducting individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials. This article presents the statistical analysis plan for an IPD meta-analysis of the effects of antifibrinolytics for acute intracranial haemorrhage. Methods: The protocol for the IPD meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016052155). We will conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with 1000 patients or more assessing the effects of antifibrinolytics in acute intracranial haemorrhage. We will assess the effect on two co-primary outcomes: 1) Death in hospital within 30 days of randomisation, and 2) Death  or dependency at final follow-up within 90 days of randomisation. The co-primary outcomes will be limited to patients treated within three hours of injury or stroke onset. We will report treatment effects using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We use logistic regression models to examine how the effect of antifibrinolytics vary by time to treatment, severity of intracranial bleeding, and age. We will also examine the effect of antifibrinolytics on secondary outcomes including death, dependency, vascular occlusive events, seizures, and neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be assessed in all patients irrespective of time of treatment. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis will examine important clinical questions about the effects of antifibrinolytic treatment in patients with intracranial haemorrhage that cannot be answered using aggregate data. With IPD we can examine how effects vary by time to treatment, bleeding severity, and age, to gain better understanding of the balance of benefit and harms on which to base recommendations for practice.

scholarly journals Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 844-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myura Nagendran ◽  
James A. Russell ◽  
Keith R. Walley ◽  
Stephen J. Brett ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Data sharing: experience of accessing individual patient data from completed randomised controlled trials in vascular and cognitive medicine

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038765
Author(s):  
Polly Scutt ◽  
Lisa J Woodhouse ◽  
Alan A Montgomery ◽  
Philip M Bath
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesMeta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.SettingTwo linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.ParticipantsParticipants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.ResultsAcross the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.ConclusionSharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.Trial registrationNot applicable.

scholarly journals The effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytics in patients with acute intracranial haemorrhage: statistical analysis plan for an individual patient data meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine Ker ◽  
David Prieto-Merino ◽  
Nikola Sprigg ◽  
Abda Mahmood ◽  
Philip Bath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Intracranial Haemorrhage ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Analysis Plan ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Time To Treatment ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Introduction: The Antifibrinolytic Trialists Collaboration aims to increase knowledge about the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic treatment by conducting individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials. This article presents the statistical analysis plan for an IPD meta-analysis of the effects of antifibrinolytics for acute intracranial haemorrhage. Methods: The protocol for the IPD meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016052155). We will conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with 1000 patients or more assessing the effects of antifibrinolytics in acute intracranial haemorrhage. We will assess the effect on two co-primary outcomes: 1) death in hospital at end of trial follow-up, and 2) death in hospital or dependency at end of trial follow-up. The co-primary outcomes will be limited to patients treated within three hours of injury or stroke onset. We will report treatment effects using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We use logistic regression models to examine how the effect of antifibrinolytics vary by time to treatment, severity of intracranial bleeding, and age. We will also examine the effect of antifibrinolytics on secondary outcomes including death, dependency, vascular occlusive events, seizures, and neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be assessed in all patients irrespective of time of treatment. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis will examine important clinical questions about the effects of antifibrinolytic treatment in patients with intracranial haemorrhage that cannot be answered using aggregate data. With IPD we can examine how effects vary by time to treatment, bleeding severity, and age, to gain better understanding of the balance of benefit and harms on which to base recommendations for practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document