on January 8, 2004
Published online before print January 8, 2004, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000109768.98392.4D
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on August 4, 2003
From the Departments of Neurology (K.C.J., E.C.H.) and Health Evaluation Sciences (K.C.H., D.P.W.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and Case Western Reserve University and MetroHealth Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio (A.F.C.). * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: kj4v{at}virginia.edu.
Background and Purpose--The ischemic stroke population is heterogeneous. Even in balanced randomized trials, patient heterogeneity biases estimates of the treatment effect toward no effect when dichotomous end points are used. Risk adjustment statistically addresses some of the heterogeneity and can reduce bias in the treatment effect estimate. The purpose of this study was to estimate the treatment effect of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) tPA data set with and without adjustment for baseline differences. Methods--Using a prespecified predictive model, we calculated unadjusted and risk-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for favorable outcome for the Barthel Index, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and Glasgow Outcome Scale for the patients in the NINDS tPA stroke trial. To assess the importance of the difference, a new sample size was calculated through the use of the risk-adjusted analysis. Results--We analyzed 615 subjects. The ORs for the Barthel Index were 1.76 (unadjusted) and 2.04 (adjusted). The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Glasgow Outcome Scale analyses also demonstrated increased ORs after adjustment. The estimated sample size required for the adjusted comparison was 13% smaller than the unadjusted sample. Conclusions--Risk adjustment in this data set suggests that the true treatment effect was larger than estimated by the unadjusted analysis. Stroke clinical trials should include prospective risk adjustment methodologies.
Accepted on October 8, 2003
Risk Adjustment Effect on Stroke Clinical Trials
Karen C. Johnston MD, MSc*;
Key words: cerebral ischemia • models, statistical • prognosis • risk adjustment • stroke outcome