Skip to main content
PMC home page
Neurotherapeutics logoLink to Neurotherapeutics
. 2010 Jan;7(1):127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.10.020

IMPACT recommendations for improving the design and analysis of clinical trials in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

Andrew I R Maas 1,✉, Ewout W Steyerberg 2, Anthony Marmarou 3, Gillian S McHugh 4, Hester F Lingsma 2, Isabella Butcher 4, Juan Lu 3, James Weir 4, Bob Roozenbeek 1, Gordon D Murray 4
PMCID: PMC5084119  PMID: 20129504

Summary

Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) pose complex methodological challenges, largely related to the heterogeneity of the population. The International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI study group has explored approaches for dealing with this heterogeneity with the aim to optimize clinical trials in TBI. Extensive prognostic analyses and simulation studies were conducted on individual patient data from eight trials and three observational studies. Here, we integrate the results of these studies into the International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI recommendations for design and analysis of trials in TBI:

  • • Details of the major baseline prognostic characteristics should be provided in every report on a TBI study; in trials they should be differentiated per treatment group. We also advocate the reporting of the baseline prognostic risk as determined by validated prognostic models.

  • • Inclusion criteria should be as broad as is compatible with the current understanding of the mechanisms of action of the intervention being evaluated. This will maximize recruitment rates and enhance the generalizability of the results.

  • • The statistical analysis should incorporate prespecified covariate adjustment to mitigate the effects of the heterogeneity.

  • • The statistical analysis should use an ordinal approach, based on either sliding dichotomy or proportional odds methodology.

Broad inclusion criteria, prespecified covariate adjustment, and an ordinal analysis will promote an efficient trial, yielding gains in statistical efficiency of more than 40%. This corresponds to being able to detect a 7% treatment effect with the same number of patients needed to demonstrate a 10% difference with an unadjusted analysis based on the dichotomized Glasgow outcome scale.

Key Words: Traumatic brain injury, clinical trials, study design, sliding dichotomy, covariate adjustment, prognosis

References

  • 1.Maas AIR, Roozenbeek B, Manley GT. Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: past experience and current development. Neurotherapeutics. 2010;7:115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.10.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maas AIR, Marmarou A, Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Steyerberg EW. Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: The IMPACT Study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:232–238. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marmarou A, Lu J, Butcher I, et al. IMPACT database of traumatic brain injury: design and description. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:239–250. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, et al. Adjustment for strong predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury trials: 25% reduction in sample size requirements in the IMPACT Study. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23:1295–1303. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.23.1295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Murray GD, Barer D, Choi S, et al. Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales—the concept of the sliding dichotomy. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22:511–517. doi: 10.1089/neu.2005.22.511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Roozenbeek B, Maas AI, Lingsma HF, et al. Baseline characteristics and statistical power in randomized controlled trials: selection, prognostic targeting, or covariate adjustment? Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2683–2690. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ab85ec. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lu J, Murray GD, Steyerberg EW, et al. Effects of glasgow outcome scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25:641–651. doi: 10.1089/neu.2007.0510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Knoller N, Levi L, Shoshan I, et al. Dexanabinol (HU-211) in the treatment of severe closed head injury: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:548–554. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200203000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McHugh GS, Butcher I, Steyerberg EW, et al. Statistical approaches to the univariate prognostic analysis of the IMPACT database on traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:251–258. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mushkudiani NA, Engel DC, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognostic value of demographic characteristics in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:259–269. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marmarou A, Lu J, Butcher I, et al. Prognostic value of the Glasgow coma scale and pupil reactivity in traumatic brain injury assessed pre-hospital and on enrollment: an IMPACT analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:270–280. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Butcher I, Maas AI, Lu J, et al. Prognostic value of admission blood pressure in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:294–302. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McHugh GS, Engel DC, Butcher I, et al. Prognostic value of secondary insults in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:287–293. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Butcher I, McHugh GS, Lu J, et al. Prognostic value of cause of injury in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:281–286. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Maas AI, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, et al. Prognostic value of computerized tomography scan characteristics in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:303–314. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Van Beek JG, Mushkudiani NA, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognostic value of admission laboratory parameters in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:315–328. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT Study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:329–337. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e165–e165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6:38–38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-6-38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mushkudiani NA, Hukkelhoven CW, Hernandez AV, et al. A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:331–343. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators. Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;336:425–429. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Machado SG, Murray GD, Teasdale GM. Evaluation of designs for clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury. J Neurotrauma. 1999;16:1131–1138. doi: 10.1089/neu.1999.16.1131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Steyerberg EW, Bossuyt PM, Lee KL. Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: should we adjust for baseline characteristics? Am Heart J. 2000;139:745–751. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90001-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332:1080–1080. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Saver JL. Novel end point analytical techniques and interpreting shifts across the entire range of outcome scales in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38:3055–3062. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.488536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mendelow AD, Gregson BA, Femandes HM, et al. for the STICH investigators. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haematomas in the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;365:387–397. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17826-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Maas AI, Murray G, Henney H, et al. Efficacy and safety of dexanabinol in severe traumatic brain injury: results of a phase III randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Lancet Neurology. 2006;5:38–45. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70253-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJ, van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med. 2004;23:2567–2586. doi: 10.1002/sim.1844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Saatman KE, Duhaime AC, Bullock R, Maas AI, Valadka A, Manley GT. Classification of traumatic brain injury for targeted therapies. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25:719–738. doi: 10.1089/neu.2008.0586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Choi SC, Clifton GL, Marmarou A, Miller ER. Misclassification and treatment effect on primary outcome measures in clinical trials of severe neurotrauma. J Neurotrauma. 2002;19:17–22. doi: 10.1089/089771502753460204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wilson JT, Slieker FJ, Legrand V, Murray G, Stocchetti N, Maas AI. Observer variation in the assessment of outcome in traumatic brain injury: experience from a multicenter, international randomized clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61:123–129. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000279732.21145.9e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Neurotherapeutics are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES