A Bayesian Re-analysis of the STRESS Trial.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Kevin D Hill, Jake Koerner, Hwanhee Hong, Jennifer S Li, Christoph Hornik, Prince J Kannankeril, Jeffrey P Jacobs, H Scott Baldwin, Marshall L Jacobs, Eric M Graham, Brian Blasiole, David F Vener, Adil S Husain, S Ram Kumar, Alexis Benscoter, Eric Wald, Tara Karamlou, Andrew H Van Bergen, David Overman, Pirooz Eghtesady, Ryan Butts, John S Kim, John P Scott, Brett R Anderson, Michael F Swartz, Sean M O'Brien
{"title":"A Bayesian Re-analysis of the STRESS Trial.","authors":"Kevin D Hill, Jake Koerner, Hwanhee Hong, Jennifer S Li, Christoph Hornik, Prince J Kannankeril, Jeffrey P Jacobs, H Scott Baldwin, Marshall L Jacobs, Eric M Graham, Brian Blasiole, David F Vener, Adil S Husain, S Ram Kumar, Alexis Benscoter, Eric Wald, Tara Karamlou, Andrew H Van Bergen, David Overman, Pirooz Eghtesady, Ryan Butts, John S Kim, John P Scott, Brett R Anderson, Michael F Swartz, Sean M O'Brien","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2025.09.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prophylactic steroids are often used to reduce the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass in infants undergoing heart surgery. The STRESS trial found that the odds of a worse outcome did not differ between infants randomized to methylprednisolone (n=599) versus placebo (n=601) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; P=0.14). However, secondary analyses showed possible benefits with methylprednisolone. To investigate further using a different probabilistic approach, we re-analyzed the STRESS trial using Bayesian analytics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a covariate-adjusted proportional odds model using the original STRESS trial primary endpoint, a ranked composite of death, transplant, major complication and post-op length of stay. We performed Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations to assess the probability of benefit (OR <1) versus harm (OR >1). Primary analysis assumed a neutral probability of benefit versus harm with weak prior belief strength (nearly non-informative prior distribution). To illustrate magnitude of effect, we calculated predicted risk of death, transplant or major complications for methylprednisolone and placebo. Sensitivity analyses evaluated pessimistic (5%-30% prior likelihood of benefit), neutral and optimistic (70%-95%) prior beliefs, and controlled strength of prior belief as weak (30% variance), moderate (15%) and strong (5%). A secondary analysis derived empirical priors using data from four previous steroid trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The posterior probability of any benefit from methylprednisolone was 92% and probability of harm was 8%. Composite death or major complication occurred in 18.8% of subjects with an absolute risk difference of -2% (95% CI -3%, +1%) for methylprednisolone. Each of 9 sensitivity analyses demonstrated greater probability of benefit than harm in the methylprednisolone group with 8 of 9 demonstrating >80% probability of benefit and ≥1% absolute difference in risk of death, transplant or major complications. In secondary analysis deriving priors from previous steroid trials, results were consistent with a 95% posterior probability of benefit.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our Bayesian re-analysis of the STRESS trial, using a range of prior beliefs, demonstrated a high probability that perioperative methylprednisolone reduces the risk of death or major complications in infants undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass compared with placebo. This more in-depth analysis expands the initial clinical evaluation of methylprednisolone provided by the STRESS trial.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03229538 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03229538).</p>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2025.09.014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prophylactic steroids are often used to reduce the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass in infants undergoing heart surgery. The STRESS trial found that the odds of a worse outcome did not differ between infants randomized to methylprednisolone (n=599) versus placebo (n=601) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; P=0.14). However, secondary analyses showed possible benefits with methylprednisolone. To investigate further using a different probabilistic approach, we re-analyzed the STRESS trial using Bayesian analytics.

Methods: We used a covariate-adjusted proportional odds model using the original STRESS trial primary endpoint, a ranked composite of death, transplant, major complication and post-op length of stay. We performed Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations to assess the probability of benefit (OR <1) versus harm (OR >1). Primary analysis assumed a neutral probability of benefit versus harm with weak prior belief strength (nearly non-informative prior distribution). To illustrate magnitude of effect, we calculated predicted risk of death, transplant or major complications for methylprednisolone and placebo. Sensitivity analyses evaluated pessimistic (5%-30% prior likelihood of benefit), neutral and optimistic (70%-95%) prior beliefs, and controlled strength of prior belief as weak (30% variance), moderate (15%) and strong (5%). A secondary analysis derived empirical priors using data from four previous steroid trials.

Results: The posterior probability of any benefit from methylprednisolone was 92% and probability of harm was 8%. Composite death or major complication occurred in 18.8% of subjects with an absolute risk difference of -2% (95% CI -3%, +1%) for methylprednisolone. Each of 9 sensitivity analyses demonstrated greater probability of benefit than harm in the methylprednisolone group with 8 of 9 demonstrating >80% probability of benefit and ≥1% absolute difference in risk of death, transplant or major complications. In secondary analysis deriving priors from previous steroid trials, results were consistent with a 95% posterior probability of benefit.

Conclusion: Our Bayesian re-analysis of the STRESS trial, using a range of prior beliefs, demonstrated a high probability that perioperative methylprednisolone reduces the risk of death or major complications in infants undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass compared with placebo. This more in-depth analysis expands the initial clinical evaluation of methylprednisolone provided by the STRESS trial.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03229538 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03229538).

压力试验的贝叶斯再分析。
背景:在接受心脏手术的婴儿中,预防性类固醇常被用于减少体外循环的全身炎症反应。STRESS试验发现,随机分配给甲基强的松龙组(n=599)和安慰剂组(n=601)的婴儿出现较差结果的几率没有差异(校正优势比[OR], 0.86; P=0.14)。然而,二次分析显示甲基强的松龙可能有益处。为了使用不同的概率方法进一步研究,我们使用贝叶斯分析重新分析了STRESS试验。方法:我们使用协变量调整的比例优势模型,采用最初的STRESS试验主要终点,死亡、移植、主要并发症和术后住院时间的排序组合。我们进行了马尔可夫链蒙特卡罗模拟来评估收益的概率(OR 1)。初步分析假设利与弊的概率为中性,先验信念强度较弱(几乎是非信息性先验分布)。为了说明效果的程度,我们计算了甲基强的松龙和安慰剂的预测死亡、移植或主要并发症的风险。敏感性分析评估悲观(5%-30%先验获益可能性)、中性和乐观(70%-95%)先验信念,并将控制先验信念的强度分为弱(30%方差)、中等(15%)和强(5%)。二次分析利用先前四次类固醇试验的数据得出经验先验。结果:甲泼尼龙获益的后验概率为92%,伤害的后验概率为8%。18.8%的受试者发生复合死亡或主要并发症,甲基强的松龙的绝对风险差为-2% (95% CI -3%, +1%)。9项敏感性分析中的每一项都显示甲基强的松龙组的获益概率大于危害概率,其中9项分析中有8项显示获益概率为80%以上,死亡、移植或主要并发症风险的绝对差异≥1%。从先前的类固醇试验中获得先验的二次分析结果与95%的后验获益概率一致。结论:我们使用一系列先验信念对STRESS试验进行贝叶斯再分析,证明与安慰剂相比,围手术期甲基强的松龙降低了接受体外循环的婴儿死亡或主要并发症的风险。这项更深入的分析扩展了STRESS试验提供的甲基强的松龙的初步临床评估。试验注册:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03229538 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03229538)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American heart journal
American heart journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.10%
发文量
214
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信