Reporting practices and impact of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on outcomes in acute brain injury clinical trials: a literature review and simulation study

急性脑损伤临床试验中报告实践及撤除生命维持治疗对结局的影响:文献综述和模拟研究

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is common in clinical trials of patients with acute brain injuries (ABI), but current reporting practices and impact on trial-reported findings are unclear. We evaluated reporting practices of WLST in contemporary clinical trials of patients with ABI and quantified the magnitude of bias on treatment effect estimates in hypothetical trials. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of contemporary ABI randomized clinical trials and a simulation-based analysis. In the literature review, we included two-arm, randomized, superiority trials of adults with ABI (traumatic brain injury, intracranial hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, or post-cardiac arrest brain injury) published in 10 high-impact journals from January 1, 2015 to December 19, 2024. We extracted WLST characteristics including frequency, timing, reasons, and neuro-prognostication criteria. In the simulation-based analysis, we evaluated the impact of WLST misclassification-defined as WLST occurring in patients who could have survived with a good neurological outcome-on observed treatment effects. For each scenario, we estimated the observed treatment effect after misclassification and calculated bias as the difference between observed and true treatment effects. We assessed both blinded and unblinded trials and binary and ordinal neurologic outcomes. RESULTS: Among 69 trials included in the literature review, 17 trials (24.6%) reported WLST frequency, 9 (13.0%) timing, 10 (14.5%) reasons, and 7 (10.1%) standardized neuro-prognostication criteria. In simulations of blinded trials, WLST misclassification consistently attenuated observed treatment effects. Increasing the fraction of misclassified WLST events led to progressively greater bias, making beneficial treatments appear less effective and harmful treatments appear less harmful. In unblinded trial simulations, the direction of bias varied by the magnitude of the true treatment effect and degree of misclassification. Findings were similar for binary and ordinal neurologic outcomes. Across all simulations, WLST misclassification reversed statistical conclusions in a median of 22.1% (interquartile range 17.4-32.4%) of trials. CONCLUSIONS: WLST is poorly reported in contemporary ABI trials. Misclassification of WLST-related deaths leads to important bias in trial-reported treatment effects, potentially yielding underpowered studies and erroneous trial conclusions. Standardized, transparent WLST reporting is essential to strengthen ABI trial design and interpretation.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。