A randomised, multi-centre trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis (TARVA): statistical analysis plan

Patrick Muller, Simon S Skene, Kashfia Chowdhury, Suzie Cro, Andrew J Goldberg, Caroline J Doré, TARVA Study Group, Stephen Bendall, Andrew Bing, Chris Blundell, Rick Brown, Clifford Butcher, Michael Butler, Tim Clough, Paul Cooke, Nick Cullen, James Davenport, Mark Davies, Sunil Dhar, Andy Goldberg, Paul Halliwell, Bill Harries, Stephen Hepple, Raj Kakwani, Mike Karski, David Loveday, Nilesh Makwana, Steve Milner, Viren Mishra, Andrew Molloy, An Murty, Martin Raglan, Benedict Rogers, Mark Rogers, Malik Siddique, Dishan Singh, Rob Smith, Rhys Thomas, Paulo Torres, Dave Townshend, Matt Welck, Ian Winson, Patrick Muller, Simon S Skene, Kashfia Chowdhury, Suzie Cro, Andrew J Goldberg, Caroline J Doré, TARVA Study Group, Stephen Bendall, Andrew Bing, Chris Blundell, Rick Brown, Clifford Butcher, Michael Butler, Tim Clough, Paul Cooke, Nick Cullen, James Davenport, Mark Davies, Sunil Dhar, Andy Goldberg, Paul Halliwell, Bill Harries, Stephen Hepple, Raj Kakwani, Mike Karski, David Loveday, Nilesh Makwana, Steve Milner, Viren Mishra, Andrew Molloy, An Murty, Martin Raglan, Benedict Rogers, Mark Rogers, Malik Siddique, Dishan Singh, Rob Smith, Rhys Thomas, Paulo Torres, Dave Townshend, Matt Welck, Ian Winson

Abstract

Background: The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to determine which surgical procedure confers the greatest improvement in pain-free function for patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Both procedures are effective but there has not yet been a direct comparison to establish which is superior. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown.

Design and methods: TARVA is a randomised, un-blinded, parallel group trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis. The primary outcome is the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score at 52 weeks post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include measures of pain, social interaction, physical function, quality of life, and range of motion. We describe in detail the statistical aspects of TARVA: the outcome measures, the sample size calculation, general analysis principles including treatment of missing data, the planned descriptive statistics and statistical models, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Discussion: The TARVA statistical analysis will provide comprehensive and precise information on the relative effectiveness of the two treatments. The plan will be implemented in January 2020 when follow-up for the trial is completed.

Trial registration: ISRCTN registry number 60672307, ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02128555. Registered 1 May 2014. Recruitment started in January 2015 and ended in January 2019.

Keywords: Arthritis; Arthrodesis; MOXFQ; Osteoarthritis; Pain-free walking; Randomised controlled trial; Statistical analysis plan; Surgery; Total ankle replacement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Glazebrook M, Daniels T, Younger A, Foote CJ, Penner M, Wing K, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life between patients with end-stage ankle and hip arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):499–505. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01299.
    1. Saltzman CL, Zimmerman MB, O'Rourke M, Brown TD, Buckwalter JA, Johnston R. Impact of comorbidities on the measurement of health in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2366–2372. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00295.
    1. Goldberg AJ, MacGregor A, Dawson J, Singh D, Cullen N, Sharp RJ, et al. The demand incidence of symptomatic ankle osteoarthritis presenting to foot & ankle surgeons in the United Kingdom. Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2012;22(3):163–166.
    1. Goldberg AJ, Sharp RJ, Cooke P. Ankle replacement: current practice of foot & ankle surgeons in the United kingdom. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(10):950–954. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0950.
    1. Zaidi R, Abbassian A, Cro S, Guha A, Cullen N, Singh D, et al. Levels of evidence in foot and ankle surgery literature: progress from 2000 to 2010? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(15):e1121–e1110. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01453.
    1. Goldberg AJ, Zaidi R, Thomson C, Doré CJ, Skene SS, Cro S, et al. Total ankle replacement versus arthrodesis (TARVA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012716. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012716.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2005;330(7495):843. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.843.
    1. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, et al. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(7):1211–1222. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-0061-5.
    1. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15(8):918–931. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.003.
    1. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, et al. Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):697–705. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.003.
    1. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, et al. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2012;94(2):215–221. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634.
    1. Dawson J, Morley S. Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) user manual. 2014.
    1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):968–983. doi: 10.1177/107110070502601113.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. StataCorp. Stata: Release 15. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.
    1. Kirkwood B, Sterne AC. Essential Medical Statistics. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2003.
    1. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, Edlin RP, Foguet P, Prakash U, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2147.
    1. Cook JA, Bruckner T, MacLennan GS, Seiler CM. Clustering in surgical trials--database of intracluster correlations. Trials. 2012;13:2. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-2.
    1. Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Kerry S. Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(5):1292–1300. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl129.
    1. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. 1998.
    1. White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clin Trials (London, England) 2012;9(4):396–407. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450098.
    1. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. Structure and content of clinical study reports E3. 1995.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.
    1. European Medicines Agency . Guideline on adjustment for baseline covariates in clinical trials. 2015.
    1. Carpenter JR, Kenward MG. Missing data in randomised controlled trials: a practical guide. Birmingham, UK: Health Technology Assessment Methodology Programme; 2008.
    1. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD. How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007;8(3):206–213. doi: 10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
    1. Carpenter J, Kenward M. Multiple imputation and its application. Chichester: Wiley; 2013.
    1. Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Doré C, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337–2343. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18556.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi