MyTEMP: Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Stephanie N Dixon, Jessica M Sontrop, Ahmed Al-Jaishi, Lauren Killin, Christopher W McIntyre, Sierra Anderson, Amit Bagga, Derek Benjamin, Peter Blake, P J Devereaux, Eduard Iliescu, Arsh Jain, Charmaine E Lok, Gihad Nesrallah, Matthew J Oliver, Sanjay Pandeya, Manish M Sood, Paul Tam, Ron Wald, Michael Walsh, Merrick Zwarenstein, Amit X Garg, Stephanie N Dixon, Jessica M Sontrop, Ahmed Al-Jaishi, Lauren Killin, Christopher W McIntyre, Sierra Anderson, Amit Bagga, Derek Benjamin, Peter Blake, P J Devereaux, Eduard Iliescu, Arsh Jain, Charmaine E Lok, Gihad Nesrallah, Matthew J Oliver, Sanjay Pandeya, Manish M Sood, Paul Tam, Ron Wald, Michael Walsh, Merrick Zwarenstein, Amit X Garg

Abstract

Background: Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) is a 4-year cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of using a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol versus a dialysate temperature of 36.5°C on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalization. Randomization was performed at the level of the dialysis center ("the cluster").

Objective: The objective is to outline the statistical analysis plan for the MyTEMP trial.

Design: MyTEMP is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized trial.

Setting: A total of 84 dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada.

Patients: Approximately 13 500 patients will have received in-center hemodialysis at the 84 participating dialysis centers during the trial period (April 3, 2017, to March 1, 2021, with a maximum follow-up to March 31, 2021).

Methods: Patient identification, baseline characteristics, and study outcomes will be obtained primarily through Ontario administrative health care databases held at ICES. Covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 84 dialysis centers (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group. Centers in the intervention group used a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol, and centers in the control group used a fixed dialysate temperature of 36.5°C.

Outcomes: The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (defined as a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) recorded in administrative health care databases. The key secondary outcome is the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure, defined as the patients' predialysis systolic blood pressure minus their nadir systolic blood pressure during the dialysis treatment. Anonymized data on patients' predialysis and intradialytic systolic blood pressure were collected at monthly intervals from each dialysis center.

Analysis plan: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The primary outcome will be analyzed at the patient level as the hazard ratio of time-to-first event, estimated from a subdistribution hazards model. Within-center correlation will be accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator. In the primary analysis, patients' observation time will end if they experience the primary outcome, emigrate from Ontario, or die of a noncardiovascular cause (which will be treated as a competing risk event). The between-group difference in the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure obtained during the dialysis sessions throughout the trial period will be analyzed at the center level using an unadjusted random-effects linear mixed model.

Trial status: The MyTEMP trial period is April 3, 2017, to March 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report results by 2023 once the updated data are available at ICES.

Trial registration: MyTEMP is registered with the US National Institutes of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366).

Statistical analytic plan: Version 1.1 June 15, 2021.

Keywords: cardiovascular events; cluster-randomized control trial; hemodialysis; personalized dialysate temperature; pragmatic trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: G.N. has received consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare and Amgen. M.J.O. is the owner of Oliver Medical Management Inc, which licenses Dialysis Management Analysis and Reporting System software. He has received honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participated on advisory boards for Janssen and Amgen. R.W. has received unrestricted research support from Baxter. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

© The Author(s) 2021.

References

    1. Al-Jaishi AA, McIntyre CW, Sontrop JM, et al.. Major Outcomes With Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP): rationale and design of a pragmatic, registry-based, cluster randomized controlled trial. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020;7:1-18. doi:10.1177/2054358119887988.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345(7881):e5661. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. Kwakkenbos L, Juszczak E, Hemkens LG, et al.. Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3:9. doi:10.1186/s41073-018-0053-3.
    1. Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, et al.. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;318(23):2337-2343. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.18556.
    1. Ontario Health. Ontario renal reporting system—datasets—Ontario data catalogue. . Accessed March 23, 2021.
    1. Raab GM, Butcher I. Randomization inference for balanced cluster-randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2005;2(2):130-140. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn075oa.
    1. Moulton L. Covariate-based constrained randomization of group-randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2004;1(3):297-305. doi:10.1191/1740774504cn024oa.
    1. Ivers NM, Halperin IJ, Barnsley J, et al.. Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review. Trials. 2012;13:120. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-120.
    1. Dmitrienko A, Offen WW, Westfall PH. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat Med. 2003;22(15):2387-2400. doi:10.1002/sim.1526.
    1. Harrington D, D’Agostino RB, Gatsonis C, et al.. New guidelines for statistical reporting in the journal. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(3):285-286. doi:10.1056/nejme1906559.
    1. Ranganathan P, Pramesh C, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analysis. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(3):144-146. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.184823.
    1. Statistics Canada. Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex. Table: 17-10-0005-01 (formerly CANSIM 051-0001). . Accessed March 23, 2021.
    1. Lipscombe LL, Hwee J, Webster L, Shah BR, Booth GL, Tu K. Identifying diabetes cases from administrative data: a population-based validation study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):316. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3148-0.
    1. Schultz SE, Rothwell DM, Chen Z, Tu K. Identifying cases of congestive heart failure from administrative data: a validation study using primary care patient records. Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2013;33(3):160-166.
    1. Tu K, Campbell NR, Chen Z-L, Cauch-Dudek KJ, McAlister FA. Accuracy of administrative databases in identifying patients with hypertension. Open Med. 2007;1(1):e18-e26. . Accessed March 23, 2021.
    1. Tu K, Chen Z, Lipscombe LL. Prevalence and incidence of hypertension from1995 to 2005: a population-based study. CMAJ. 2008;178(11):1429-1435. doi:10.1503/cmaj.071283.
    1. Gershon AS, Wang C, Guan J, Vasilevska-Ristovska J, Cicutto L, To T. Identifying individuals with physcian diagnosed COPD in health administrative databases. COPD. 2009;6(5):388-394. doi:10.1080/15412550903140865.
    1. Juurlink D, Preyra C, Croxford R, et al.. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database : A Validation Study. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Clinical Evaluative; 2006.
    1. Kokotailo RA, Hill MD. Coding of stroke and stroke risk factors using International Classification of Diseases, revisions 9 and 10. Stroke. 2005;36(8):1776-1781. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000174293.17959.a1.
    1. Andrade SE, Harrold LR, Tjia J, et al.. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(suppl 1):100-128. doi:10.1002/pds.2312.
    1. Becker R, Silvi J, Ma Fat D, L’Hours A, Laurenti R. A method for deriving leading causes of death. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(4):297-304. doi:10.2471/BLT.05.028670.
    1. O’Donnell S, Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System (CCDSS) Osteoporosis Working Group. Use of administrative data for national surveillance of osteoporosis and related fractures in Canada: results from a feasibility study. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:143. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0143-2.
    1. Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G, et al.. Comparative trends in incident fracture rates for all long-term care and community-dwelling seniors in Ontario, Canada, 2002–2012. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(3):887-897. doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3477-3.
    1. Jaglal S, Cameron C, Croxford R, Mackay C, Yasmin F. Ontario osteoporosis strategy-provincial performance data for osteoporosis management: technical report; 2020. . Accessed March 23, 2021.
    1. Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Altman DG. Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls. Lancet. 2002;359(9318):1686-1689. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08594-X.
    1. Lau B, Cole SR, Gange SJ. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(2):244-256. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp107.
    1. Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84(408):1074-1078. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478874.
    1. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496-509. doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144.
    1. Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Segal JB, Wu AW, Scharfstein D, Boyd C. Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications. Med Care. 2010;48(6)(suppl):S96-S105. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d99107.
    1. Troendle JF, Leifer ES, Kunz L. Dealing with competing risks in clinical trials: how to choose the primary efficacy analysis? Stat Med. 2018;37(19):2787-2796. doi:10.1002/sim.7800.
    1. Austin PC, Fine JP. Accounting for competing risks in randomized controlled trials: a review and recommendations for improvement. Stat Med. 2017;36(8):1203-1209. doi:10.1002/sim.7215.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
    1. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al.. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130-1139. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83.
    1. Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al.. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2018;320(21):2251-2259. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14276.
    1. Lewis RJ, Angus DC. Time for clinicians to embrace their inner Bayesian? J Am Med Assoc. 2018;320(21):2208-2210. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16916.
    1. van Doorn J, van den Bergh D, Böhm U, et al.. The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021;28:813-826. doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01798-5.
    1. Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):182-191. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007.
    1. Austin PC, Fine JP. Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-Gray model analyses for Practical recommendations for competing risk data. Stat Med. 2017;36(27):4391-4400. doi:10.1002/sim.7501.
    1. Lin DY, Wei LJ, Yang I, Ying Z. Semiparametric regression for the mean and rate functions of recurrent events. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodol). 2000;62(4):711-730. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00259.
    1. Schaubel DE. Analysis of clustered recurrent event data with application to hospitalization rates among renal failure patients. Biostatistics. 2005;6(3):404-419. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxi018.
    1. Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Quan H, Ghali WA. Adapting the Charlson comorbidity index for use in patients with ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42(1):125-132. doi:10.1016/S0272-6386(03)00415-3.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir