Citations

6513 Background: Investigators finding a large treatment effect in an interim analysis may terminate a randomized trial (RCT) earlier than planned. A systematic review (Montori et. al., JAMA 2005; 294: 2203–2209) found that RCTs stopped early for benefit are poorly reported and may overestimate the true treatment affect. The extent to which RCTs in oncology stopped early for benefit share similar concerns remains unclear. Methods: We selected RCTs in oncology which had been reported in the original systematic review and reviewed the study characteristics, features related to the decision to monitor and stop the study early (sample size, interim analyses, monitoring and stopping rules), and the number of events and the estimated treatment effects. Results: We found 29 RCTs in malignant hematology (n=6) and oncology (n=23), 52% published in 2000–2004 and 41% in 3 high-impact medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA). The majority (79%) of trials reported a planned sample size and, on average, recruited 67% of the planned sample size (SD 31%). RCTs reported (1) the planned sample size (n=20), (2) the interim analysis at which the study was terminated (n=16), and (3) whether the decision to stop the study prematurely was informed by a stopping rule (n=16); only 13 reported all three. There was a highly significant correlation between the number of events and the treatment effect (r=0.68, p=0.0007). The odds of finding a large treatment effect (a relative risk < median of 0.54, IQR 0.3–0.7) when studies stopped after a few events (no. events < median of 54 events, IQR 22–125) was 6.2 times greater than when studies stopped later. Conclusions: RCTs in oncology stopped early for benefit tend to report large treatment effects that may overestimate the true treatment effect, particularly when the number of events driving study termination is small. Also, information pertinent to the decision to stop early was inconsistently reported. Clinicians and policymakers should interpret such studies with caution, especially when information about the decision to stop early is not provided and few events occurred. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

AbstractObjectiveTo test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy‐two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site.ResultsThe decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non‐white parents (decisional conflict scale, −8.14, 95% CI: −12.33 to −3.95; Pint = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35‐14.83; Pint = 0.04).ConclusionsUse of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non‐white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESHigh‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do‐not‐intubate (DNI) and/or do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.RESULTSWe included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.CONCLUSIONSWhile HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high‐quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.

80 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Methods: In order to dynamically display content -- including textual data, tables, charts, and graphs – standard data formats and protocols were designed for various components of the systematic reviews carried out by researchers. Given these standardized formats, software was written to interpret this data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot or data table. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs (such as which aspect of the meta-analysis to view) and displays the associated output was designed. The overall living Systematic Review infrastructure includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis, and an online reporting platform. Results: We have developed a Living Systematic Review engine that can take in standardized data and reflect this data in an interactive, intuitive manner in the form of text, tables, and plots. This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables or omit/highlight specific pieces of data. Conclusions: We have initiated the first living systematic review in immune-oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. The Living Systematic Review interface allows users to easily and intuitively access the most recent available clinical evidence on toxicity of ICIs.

Abstract Background: The Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) is a self-reported measure of the effect of treatment workload on patient wellbeing. We sought to validate the TBQ in Spanish and use it to estimate the burden of treatment in Argentinian patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: The TBQ was forward-backward translated into Spanish. Two focus groups and 25 semi-structured interviews focused on wording and possible item exclusion. Validation was performed in 2 steps. First, 162 patients across a range of MS severity completed the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the dimensional structure of the TBQ. Construct validity was assessed by studying correlations with fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Then, in a second cohort of 171 patients, we evaluated the association between TBQ scores and patients’ sex, age, education level, employment status, type of MS, disease duration, comorbidities, EDSS, pharmacological treatment and medication adherence. Results: The questionnaire presented a 3-factor structure in which burden was related to pharmacological treatment; comprehensive health assistance; and psycho-social-economic context. Composite reliability was > 0.8 for all factors. TBQ showed positive correlation with fatigue (rs= 0.467, p=0.006), negative correlation with QoL (rs -0.446, p=0.009). For the second cohort, total TBQ score was 43 (SD 29). Lowest scores were observed on self-monitoring (0.53, SD 1.3) and highest for administrative load (4.2, SD 3.4). Inverse association was found between the TBQ score and medication adherence (r 0.243 p=0.001). TBQ scores also correlated with daily patient pill/injection requirements (r 0.175 p=0.020). Individuals receiving injectable treatment scored higher than patients on oral drugs (total TBQ 51 (SD 32) vs 39 (SD 27) p=0.002). Conclusions: The TBQ in Spanish is a reliable instrument and showed adequate correlation with QoL and adherence scales in MS patients. TBQ may benefit health resources allocation and provide tailor therapeutic interventions to construct a minimally disruptive care.