CVD and Multivitamin Supplementation Study

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

How were patients likely blinded during the study?

Through random assignment to different rooms

With the help of third-party monitors

By utilizing calendar packs with similar colored pills (correct)

Using identical calendars for appointments

What indicates that the blinding of patients was likely effective?

Randomization in participant selection

High adherence rates at the end of the study (correct)

Frequent interaction between caregivers and patients

Change in study endpoints midway

How were participants assigned to intervention and control groups?

By age only

Using a lottery system

Through random selection

Randomly assigned using blocks (correct)

Was there evidence of group allocation concealment in the study?

No, it was not mentioned Signup and view all the answers

Were the study groups similar with respect to known prognostic variables?

Unknown as not enough information is provided Signup and view all the answers

What percentage of potential participants successfully adhered to their pills during the run-in phase?

63% Signup and view all the answers

What is a potential downside of using a run-in phase in clinical studies?

Reduced external validity Signup and view all the answers

What measure was used for stratification during participant randomization?

Medical history factors Signup and view all the answers

What method was used to ensure follow-up outcomes were collected?

Web searches and medical record reviews Signup and view all the answers

Were patients analyzed according to their original group allocations?

Yes, all were analyzed in their original groups Signup and view all the answers

What was the number needed to harm (NNH) identified from the study?

348 people Signup and view all the answers

Were surrogate endpoints utilized in this study?

No, only hard clinical endpoints were examined Signup and view all the answers

What was the point estimate for the primary endpoint compared to placebo?

HR 1.01 Signup and view all the answers

What was the absolute risk REDUCTION observed in the study for the use of a multivitamin?

None - it increased the risk! Signup and view all the answers

What was the relative risk (RR) compared to placebo?

1.02 Signup and view all the answers

What was the range of the confidence intervals (CI) reported for the primary endpoint?

0.91 to 1.10 Signup and view all the answers

What is suggested about the clinical importance of the treatment effect results?

The results are likely not important for clinical practice. Signup and view all the answers

What do the confidence intervals imply about the treatment effect possible outcomes?

A possible 9% reduction to a 10% increase in major CVD. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Study Design Overview

Investigates the impact of daily multivitamin supplementation on cardiovascular diseases (CVD) among men over 50 over a 10-year period.
Examines if multivitamins reduce incidences of major CVD events, including non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death, compared to placebo.

Group Allocation and Randomization

Participants were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups using blocks of 16.
Stratification was based on age, history of cancer and CVD, and beta-carotene use for approximately half of participants.
No information provided on allocation concealment, indicating potential bias in group assignment.

Prognostic Balance

Both study groups appeared similar regarding key prognostic variables (age, history of CVD).
Table 1 suggests that participants started with equivalent health prognoses.

Run-in Phase Insights

Initial run-in phase involved 11,128 potential participants, of which only 7,000 (63%) adhered to pill regimen and were then randomized.
Run-in phases aim to enhance study power and signal detection by enrolling only adherent individuals, but reduce generalizability to the broader population.

Blinding Procedures

Participants were blinded through calendar packs, although details on the specific blinding method remain unclear.
Adherence rates at study end were similar, indicating effective maintenance of blinding.
Endpoint evaluators were blinded to treatment assignment, enhancing study integrity.
Minimal interaction between caregivers and participants may have reduced the significance of caregiver blinding.

Considerations on Blinding and Generalizability

While major outcome assessors were blinded, the lack of information on analyst blinding raises some concerns, yet is believed to have minimal effects.
Generalizability may be compromised due to the restrictive nature of the run-in phase, which excluded non-adherent individuals.

Study Group Balance and Follow-up

Groups were prognostically balanced at the completion of the study, ensuring equal distribution of characteristics.
Follow-up duration averaged around 15 years, providing adequate time to assess the impact of multivitamins on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes, particularly in males with an average age of 63.
Treatment differences are expected to manifest over a timeframe of 10-15 years, justifying the study's long follow-up period.

Outcome Collection and Assessment

Authors employed multiple methods for outcome collection, including web searches, medical record evaluations, and autopsy reviews, enhancing reliability.
Assessments were performed uniformly across study arms, ensuring consistency in data collection and reducing bias.

Patient Group Allocation and Trial Status

Patients were analyzed according to their initial group assignments, reinforcing the integrity of the study design.
The status regarding whether the trial was stopped early is unspecified, indicating a need for clarification on this point.

Clinical Outcomes in Cardiovascular Studies

Major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes analyzed include stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and overall CV disease.
Other potential endpoints like cancer were evaluated in separate studies, suggesting a focused approach on cardiovascular outcomes.
Primary endpoint was defined as major CV disease consisting of fatal and non-fatal strokes, MIs, or CV deaths.
Secondary endpoints encompassed total MI, total stroke (both fatal and non-fatal), isolated CV death, ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, and total mortality.
Hard clinical endpoints were prioritized; surrogate endpoints were not utilized in the study.

Treatment Benefits vs. Risks

Concerns raised over the worth of treatment benefits compared to potential harm and financial costs incurred.
No benefits observed in the treatment group, making the expenses for the province unjustifiable.
The possible unintended consequences of the treatment highlight the necessity of cautious evaluation.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) could not be calculated; however, the Number Needed to Harm (NNH) was estimated to be approximately 348, indicating a higher risk in the treatment group.
Overall conclusion emphasizes that the benefits of treatment do not outweigh the associated costs or risks.

Clinical Endpoints in CV Study

Major endpoints for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and overall CV disease.
The primary endpoint targeted was major CV disease, including both fatal and non-fatal instances of stroke, MI, or CV-related death.
Secondary endpoints encompassed total MI, total stroke (both fatal and non-fatal), CV death, ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, and total mortality.
The study utilized hard clinical endpoints rather than surrogate endpoints, emphasizing direct clinical outcomes.

Number Needed to Treat (NNT) & Number Needed to Harm (NNH)

Calculation of NNT to prevent one adverse event was not feasible due to results indicating worse outcomes for the treatment group.
NNH was estimated at approximately 348 individuals, suggesting that treatment could lead to adverse outcomes.
Overall analysis indicates that the benefits of the treatment do not justify the associated costs or potential risks.

Treatment Effect Overview

The treatment effect for the primary endpoint showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.01, indicating minimal impact.
Results suggest the effect is extremely small, non-significant, and clinically inconsequential.

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

The relative risk (RR) was calculated at 1.02, also showing non-significant results.
Major cardiovascular disease (CVD) rates were 11.98% in the multivitamin group and 11.69% in the placebo group, reflecting negligible difference.

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

No absolute risk reduction was observed; the event rate in the multivitamin arm was higher than in the placebo.
As a result, the number needed to treat (NNT) cannot be calculated.

Number Needed to Harm (NNH)

An alternative measure, the number needed to harm (NNH), indicated a difference in event rates of 0.0029.
Over a period of 10 to 15 years, this translates to approximately 348 to 357 individuals for adverse events, which is deemed trivial.
NNH is calculated as 1/(0.0029), using the event rates of 0.1198 for experimental event rate (EER) and 0.1169 for control event rate (CER).

Treatment Effect Estimates

Treatment effect estimate is described with a confidence interval (CI) of 0.91 to 1.10.
The CI indicates a potential true effect range from a 9% reduction to a 10% increase in major cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

Confidence Intervals

The 95% confidence intervals are deemed reasonably precise, but larger sample sizes typically yield smaller CIs.
Given the observed CI, the results suggest that there may not be a significant treatment effect.

Clinical Implications

Both extremes of the CI (9% reduction and 10% increase) are below the 20% effect size rule, indicating low clinical importance.
Findings are suggested to hold no substantial value for clinical practice, affecting treatment decisions and guidelines.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

This quiz evaluates the impact of daily multivitamin supplementation on the incidence of major cardiovascular diseases in men over 50. It addresses critical methodological aspects such as randomization, group allocation, and baseline prognostic similarities between intervention and control groups.