Elizabeth Colantuoni1,2, Mounica Koneru3,4, Narjes Akhlaghi3,4, Ximin Li5, Mohamed D Hashem6, Victor D Dinglas3,4, Karin J Neufeld3,7, Michael O Harhay8,9,10, Dale M Needham3,4,11. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. ejohnso2@jhu.edu. 2. Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. ejohnso2@jhu.edu. 3. Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 10. PAIR (Palliative and Advanced Illness Research) Center Clinical Trials Methods and Outcomes Lab, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 11. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU. METHODS: Relevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204). RESULTS: Among 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: To improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU. METHODS: Relevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204). RESULTS: Among 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: To improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely; Rakesh C Arora; Michele C Balas; Malaz A Boustani; Gabriel Heras La Calle; Colm Cunningham; John W Devlin; Julius Elefante; Jin H Han; Alasdair M MacLullich; José R Maldonado; Alessandro Morandi; Dale M Needham; Valerie J Page; Louise Rose; Jorge I F Salluh; Tarek Sharshar; Yahya Shehabi; Yoanna Skrobik; Arjen J C Slooter; Heidi A B Smith Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marion L Mitchell; David H K Shum; Gabor Mihala; Jenny E Murfield; Leanne M Aitken Journal: Aust Crit Care Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Ayumi Shintani; Brenda Truman; Theodore Speroff; Sharon M Gordon; Frank E Harrell; Sharon K Inouye; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Louise Rose; Meera Agar; Lisa Burry; Noll Campbell; Mike Clarke; Jacques Lee; John Marshall; Najma Siddiqi; Valerie Page Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: P P Pandharipande; T D Girard; J C Jackson; A Morandi; J L Thompson; B T Pun; N E Brummel; C G Hughes; E E Vasilevskis; A K Shintani; K G Moons; S K Geevarghese; A Canonico; R O Hopkins; G R Bernard; R S Dittus; E W Ely Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Louise Rose; Meera Agar; Lisa D Burry; Noll Campbell; Mike Clarke; Jacques Lee; Najma Siddiqi; Valerie J Page Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: James L Rudolph; Richard N Jones; Sue E Levkoff; Christopher Rockett; Sharon K Inouye; Frank W Sellke; Shukri F Khuri; Lewis A Lipsitz; Basel Ramlawi; Sidney Levitsky; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew J Goodwin; Danny Eytan; William Dixon; Sebastian D Goodfellow; Zakary Doherty; Robert W Greer; Alistair McEwan; Mark Tracy; Peter C Laussen; Azadeh Assadi; Mjaye Mazwi Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-08-18