26
|
Cooper CL, Whitehead A, Pottrill E, Julious SA, Walters SJ. Are pilot trials useful for predicting randomisation and attrition rates in definitive studies: A review of publicly funded trials. Clin Trials 2018; 15:189-196. [PMID: 29361833 PMCID: PMC5894808 DOI: 10.1177/1740774517752113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS External pilot trials are recommended for testing the feasibility of main or confirmatory trials. However, there is little evidence that progress in external pilot trials actually predicts randomisation and attrition rates in the main trial. To assess the use of external pilot trials in trial design, we compared randomisation and attrition rates in publicly funded randomised controlled trials with rates in their pilots. METHODS Randomised controlled trials for which there was an external pilot trial were identified from reports published between 2004 and 2013 in the Health Technology Assessment Journal. Data were extracted from published papers, protocols and reports. Bland-Altman plots and descriptive statistics were used to investigate the agreement of randomisation and attrition rates between the full and external pilot trials. RESULTS Of 561 reports, 41 were randomised controlled trials with pilot trials and 16 met criteria for a pilot trial with sufficient data. Mean attrition and randomisation rates were 21.1% and 50.4%, respectively, in the pilot trials and 16.8% and 65.2% in the main. There was minimal bias in the pilot trial when predicting the main trial attrition and randomisation rate. However, the variation was large: the mean difference in the attrition rate between the pilot and main trial was -4.4% with limits of agreement of -37.1% to 28.2%. Limits of agreement for randomisation rates were -47.8% to 77.5%. CONCLUSION Results from external pilot trials to estimate randomisation and attrition rates should be used with caution as comparison of the difference in the rates between pilots and their associated full trial demonstrates high variability. We suggest using internal pilot trials wherever appropriate.
Collapse
|
27
|
Julious SA, Horspool MJ, Davis S, Bradburn M, Norman P, Shephard N, Cooper CL, Smithson WH, Boote J, Elphick H, Loban A, Franklin M, Kua WS, May R, Campbell J, Williams R, Rex S, Bortolami O. PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-154. [PMID: 28005003 DOI: 10.3310/hta20930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. DESIGN Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. SETTING Primary care. INTERVENTION A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. LIMITATION The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. CONCLUSIONS The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. FUNDING DETAILS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.
Collapse
|
28
|
Bell ML, Whitehead AL, Julious SA. Guidance for using pilot studies to inform the design of intervention trials with continuous outcomes. Clin Epidemiol 2018; 10:153-157. [PMID: 29403314 PMCID: PMC5779280 DOI: 10.2147/clep.s146397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 113] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background A pilot study can be an important step in the assessment of an intervention by providing information to design the future definitive trial. Pilot studies can be used to estimate the recruitment and retention rates and population variance and to provide preliminary evidence of efficacy potential. However, estimation is poor because pilot studies are small, so sensitivity analyses for the main trial’s sample size calculations should be undertaken. Methods We demonstrate how to carry out easy-to-perform sensitivity analysis for designing trials based on pilot data using an example. Furthermore, we introduce rules of thumb for the size of the pilot study so that the overall sample size, for both pilot and main trials, is minimized. Results The example illustrates how sample size estimates for the main trial can alter dramatically by plausibly varying assumptions. Required sample size for 90% power varied from 392 to 692 depending on assumptions. Some scenarios were not feasible based on the pilot study recruitment and retention rates. Conclusion Pilot studies can be used to help design the main trial, but caution should be exercised. We recommend the use of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the design assumptions for a main trial.
Collapse
|
29
|
Liu F, Walters SJ, Julious SA. Design considerations and analysis planning of a phase 2a proof of concept study in rheumatoid arthritis in the presence of possible non-monotonicity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17:149. [PMID: 28969588 PMCID: PMC5625783 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0416-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2017] [Accepted: 08/31/2017] [Indexed: 05/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background It is important to quantify the dose response for a drug in phase 2a clinical trials so the optimal doses can then be selected for subsequent late phase trials. In a phase 2a clinical trial of new lead drug being developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a U-shaped dose response curve was observed. In the light of this result further research was undertaken to design an efficient phase 2a proof of concept (PoC) trial for a follow-on compound using the lessons learnt from the lead compound. Methods The planned analysis for the Phase 2a trial for GSK123456 was a Bayesian Emax model which assumes the dose-response relationship follows a monotonic sigmoid “S” shaped curve. This model was found to be suboptimal to model the U-shaped dose response observed in the data from this trial and alternatives approaches were needed to be considered for the next compound for which a Normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) is proposed. This paper compares the statistical properties of the Bayesian Emax model and NDLM model and both models are evaluated using simulation in the context of adaptive Phase 2a PoC design under a variety of assumed dose response curves: linear, Emax model, U-shaped model, and flat response. Results It is shown that the NDLM method is flexible and can handle a wide variety of dose-responses, including monotonic and non-monotonic relationships. In comparison to the NDLM model the Emax model excelled with higher probability of selecting ED90 and smaller average sample size, when the true dose response followed Emax like curve. In addition, the type I error, probability of incorrectly concluding a drug may work when it does not, is inflated with the Bayesian NDLM model in all scenarios which would represent a development risk to pharmaceutical company. The bias, which is the difference between the estimated effect from the Emax and NDLM models and the simulated value, is comparable if the true dose response follows a placebo like curve, an Emax like curve, or log linear shape curve under fixed dose allocation, no adaptive allocation, half adaptive and adaptive scenarios. The bias though is significantly increased for the Emax model if the true dose response follows a U-shaped curve. Conclusions In most cases the Bayesian Emax model works effectively and efficiently, with low bias and good probability of success in case of monotonic dose response. However, if there is a belief that the dose response could be non-monotonic then the NDLM is the superior model to assess the dose response. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0416-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
30
|
Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Rothwell JC, Ramsay CR, Hampson LV, Emsley R, Walters SJ, Hewitt C, Bland M, Fergusson DA, Berlin JA, Altman D, Vale LD. Choosing the target difference ('effect size') for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA 2 guidance protocol. Trials 2017; 18:271. [PMID: 28606102 PMCID: PMC5469157 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1969-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2016] [Accepted: 05/04/2017] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the estimation of the number of participants needed. By far the most common approach is to specify a target difference and then estimate the corresponding sample size; this sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect such a difference between the randomised groups (at the planned statistical significance level). The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as carrying scientific and ethical aspects to its choice. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of an RCT, the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the protocol of the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) project, which will produce guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for RCTs. METHODS/DESIGN The DELTA2 project has five components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives, as well as one-off engagement sessions at relevant stakeholder meetings (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). DISCUSSION Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of the design of an RCT. There is a need for better guidance for researchers and funders regarding specification and reporting of this aspect of trial design. The aim of this project is to produce consensus based guidance for researchers and funders.
Collapse
|
31
|
Walters SJ, Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, Knox C, Nadin B, Rothwell J, Surtees M, Julious SA. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e015276. [PMID: 28320800 PMCID: PMC5372123 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 289] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Substantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope. OBJECTIVES To review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION HTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION Information was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Target sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data). RESULTS This review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43-2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79-97%). CONCLUSIONS There is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.
Collapse
|
32
|
Posadzki P, Mastellos N, Ryan R, Gunn LH, Felix LM, Pappas Y, Gagnon M, Julious SA, Xiang L, Oldenburg B, Car J. Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12:CD009921. [PMID: 27960229 PMCID: PMC6463821 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009921.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies. MAIN RESULTS We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.
Collapse
|
33
|
Flight L, Julious SA. Corrections: The disagreeable behaviour of the kappa statistic. Pharm Stat 2016; 16:95. [PMID: 27910219 DOI: 10.1002/pst.1795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2016] [Accepted: 10/24/2016] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
34
|
Flight L, Julious SA, Goodacre S. Can emergency medicine research benefit from adaptive design clinical trials? Emerg Med J 2016; 34:243-248. [DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2016] [Accepted: 10/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
35
|
|
36
|
Hatfield I, Allison A, Flight L, Julious SA, Dimairo M. Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials. Trials 2016; 17:150. [PMID: 26993469 PMCID: PMC4799596 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1273-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2015] [Accepted: 03/02/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.
Collapse
|
37
|
Dimairo M, Julious SA, Todd S, Nicholl JP, Boote J. Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials 2015; 16:585. [PMID: 26700741 PMCID: PMC4690427 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-1119-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2015] [Accepted: 12/14/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders. Methods We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation. Results Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles. Conclusions There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations’ funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1119-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
38
|
Cameron D, Epton T, Norman P, Sheeran P, Harris PR, Webb TL, Julious SA, Brennan A, Thomas C, Petroczi A, Naughton D, Shah I. A theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students (U@Uni:LifeGuide): results from a repeat randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16:555. [PMID: 26643917 PMCID: PMC4672536 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-1092-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2015] [Accepted: 11/27/2015] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This paper reports the results of a repeat trial assessing the effectiveness of an online theory-based intervention to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours in new university students. The original trial found that the intervention reduced the number of smokers at 6-month follow-up compared with the control condition, but had non-significant effects on the other targeted health behaviours. However, the original trial suffered from low levels of engagement, which the repeat trial sought to rectify. METHODS Three weeks before staring university, all incoming undergraduate students at a large university in the UK were sent an email inviting them to participate in the study. After completing a baseline questionnaire, participants were randomly allocated to intervention or control conditions. The intervention consisted of a self-affirmation manipulation, health messages based on the theory of planned behaviour and implementation intention tasks. Participants were followed-up 1 and 6 months after starting university. The primary outcome measures were portions of fruit and vegetables consumed, physical activity levels, units of alcohol consumed and smoking status at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS The study recruited 2,621 students (intervention n=1346, control n=1275), of whom 1495 completed at least one follow-up (intervention n=696, control n=799). Intention-to-treat analyses indicated that the intervention had a non-significant effect on the primary outcomes, although the effect of the intervention on fruit and vegetable intake was significant in the per-protocol analyses. Secondary analyses revealed that the intervention had significant effects on having smoked at university (self-report) and on a biochemical marker of alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS Despite successfully increasing levels of engagement, the intervention did not have a significant effect on the primary outcome measures. The relatively weak effects of the intervention, found in both the original and repeat trials, may be due to the focus on multiple versus single health behaviours. Future interventions targeting the health behaviour of new university students should therefore focus on single health behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07407344 .
Collapse
|
39
|
Flight L, Julious SA. Practical guide to sample size calculations: non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Pharm Stat 2015; 15:80-9. [DOI: 10.1002/pst.1716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Revised: 08/26/2015] [Accepted: 08/26/2015] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
40
|
Flight L, Julious SA. Practical guide to sample size calculations: superiority trials. Pharm Stat 2015; 15:75-9. [DOI: 10.1002/pst.1718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Revised: 08/26/2015] [Accepted: 08/26/2015] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
41
|
Flight L, Julious SA. Practical guide to sample size calculations: an introduction. Pharm Stat 2015; 15:68-74. [DOI: 10.1002/pst.1709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Revised: 08/14/2015] [Accepted: 07/21/2015] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
42
|
Dimairo M, Boote J, Julious SA, Nicholl JP, Todd S. Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials 2015; 16:430. [PMID: 26416387 PMCID: PMC4587783 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0958-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2014] [Accepted: 09/14/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0958-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
43
|
Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res 2015; 25:1057-73. [PMID: 26092476 PMCID: PMC4876429 DOI: 10.1177/0962280215588241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 787] [Impact Index Per Article: 87.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Sample size justification is an important consideration when planning a clinical trial, not only for the main trial but also for any preliminary pilot trial. When the outcome is a continuous variable, the sample size calculation requires an accurate estimate of the standard deviation of the outcome measure. A pilot trial can be used to get an estimate of the standard deviation, which could then be used to anticipate what may be observed in the main trial. However, an important consideration is that pilot trials often estimate the standard deviation parameter imprecisely. This paper looks at how we can choose an external pilot trial sample size in order to minimise the sample size of the overall clinical trial programme, that is, the pilot and the main trial together. We produce a method of calculating the optimal solution to the required pilot trial sample size when the standardised effect size for the main trial is known. However, as it may not be possible to know the standardised effect size to be used prior to the pilot trial, approximate rules are also presented. For a main trial designed with 90% power and two-sided 5% significance, we recommend pilot trial sample sizes per treatment arm of 75, 25, 15 and 10 for standardised effect sizes that are extra small (≤0.1), small (0.2), medium (0.5) or large (0.8), respectively.
Collapse
|
44
|
Flight L, Julious SA. The disagreeable behaviour of the kappa statistic. Pharm Stat 2014; 14:74-8. [PMID: 25470361 DOI: 10.1002/pst.1659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2014] [Revised: 08/14/2014] [Accepted: 10/22/2014] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
It is often of interest to measure the agreement between a number of raters when an outcome is nominal or ordinal. The kappa statistic is used as a measure of agreement. The statistic is highly sensitive to the distribution of the marginal totals and can produce unreliable results. Other statistics such as the proportion of concordance, maximum attainable kappa and prevalence and bias adjusted kappa should be considered to indicate how well the kappa statistic represents agreement in the data. Each kappa should be considered and interpreted based on the context of the data being analysed.
Collapse
|
45
|
Clayton S, Apperley E, Hannon F, Karia A, Baxter V, Julious SA. A survey of birth order status of students studying for medical degree at the University of Sheffield. JRSM Open 2014; 5:2054270414533327. [PMID: 25352987 PMCID: PMC4207295 DOI: 10.1177/2054270414533327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective It is hypothesised that firstborn children and only children are more intelligent with higher intelligence scores having been observed in firstborn or only children. Evidence of the increased intelligence has been suggested by the fact that 21/23 (91%) of US astronauts, 23/43 (53%) of US presidents and between 75 and 80% of students at Harvard are firstborn or only children. It is of interest to investigate, therefore, whether a high achieving career such as medicine has a disproportionate number of firstborn or only children. Design A survey of medical students. Setting The University of Sheffield Medical School. Participants All students studying medicine in the academic year 2011–2012. Main outcome measures The proportion of firstborn or only children. Results There was a disproportionate number of students who were firstborn or only children: 53% (95% CI 49 to 58%). The expected percentage is 39.8% and therefore we can reject the null hypothesis. The results were consistent across all phases of study. Conclusions There is a higher than expected proportion of medical students at the University of Sheffield who are firstborn or only children. The data though highlight the issue of comparing populations. Here we are comparing a population of medical students with a general population. A comparison which may not be appropriate as medical students may be drawn from a subsample of the general population.
Collapse
|
46
|
Epton T, Norman P, Dadzie AS, Harris PR, Webb TL, Sheeran P, Julious SA, Ciravegna F, Brennan A, Meier PS, Naughton D, Petroczi A, Kruger J, Shah I. A theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students (U@Uni): results from a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2014; 14:563. [PMID: 24903620 PMCID: PMC4067627 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-563] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2014] [Accepted: 05/23/2014] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Too few young people engage in behaviours that reduce the risk of morbidity and premature mortality, such as eating healthily, being physically active, drinking sensibly and not smoking. This study sought to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a theory-based online health behaviour intervention (based on self-affirmation theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour and implementation intentions) targeting these behaviours in new university students, in comparison to a measurement-only control. Methods Two-weeks before starting university all incoming undergraduates at the University of Sheffield were invited to take part in a study of new students’ health behaviour. A randomised controlled design, with a baseline questionnaire, and two follow-ups (1 and 6 months after starting university), was used to evaluate the intervention. Primary outcomes were measures of the four health behaviours targeted by the intervention at 6-month follow-up, i.e., portions of fruit and vegetables, metabolic equivalent of tasks (physical activity), units of alcohol, and smoking status. Results The study recruited 1,445 students (intervention n = 736, control n = 709, 58% female, Mean age = 18.9 years), of whom 1,107 completed at least one follow-up (23% attrition). The intervention had a statistically significant effect on one primary outcome, smoking status at 6-month follow-up, with fewer smokers in the intervention arm (8.7%) than in the control arm (13.0%; Odds ratio = 1.92, p = .010). There were no significant intervention effects on the other primary outcomes (physical activity, alcohol or fruit and vegetable consumption) at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions The results of the RCT indicate that the online health behaviour intervention reduced smoking rates, but it had little effect on fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity or alcohol consumption, during the first six months at university. However, engagement with the intervention was low. Further research is needed before strong conclusions can be made regarding the likely effectiveness of the intervention to promote health lifestyle habits in new university students. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN67684181.
Collapse
|
47
|
Lee EC, Whitehead AL, Jacques RM, Julious SA. The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered? BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14:41. [PMID: 24650044 PMCID: PMC3994566 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-41] [Citation(s) in RCA: 222] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2013] [Accepted: 03/12/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In an evaluation of a new health technology, a pilot trial may be undertaken prior to a trial that makes a definitive assessment of benefit. The objective of pilot studies is to provide sufficient evidence that a larger definitive trial can be undertaken and, at times, to provide a preliminary assessment of benefit. METHODS We describe significance thresholds, confidence intervals and surrogate markers in the context of pilot studies and how Bayesian methods can be used in pilot trials. We use a worked example to illustrate the issues raised. RESULTS We show how significance levels other than the traditional 5% should be considered to provide preliminary evidence for efficacy and how estimation and confidence intervals should be the focus to provide an estimated range of possible treatment effects. We also illustrate how Bayesian methods could also assist in the early assessment of a health technology. CONCLUSIONS We recommend that in pilot trials the focus should be on descriptive statistics and estimation, using confidence intervals, rather than formal hypothesis testing and that confidence intervals other than 95% confidence intervals, such as 85% or 75%, be used for the estimation. The confidence interval should then be interpreted with regards to the minimum clinically important difference. We also recommend that Bayesian methods be used to assist in the interpretation of pilot trials. Surrogate endpoints can also be used in pilot trials but they must reliably predict the overall effect on the clinical outcome.
Collapse
|
48
|
Crisp E, Julious SA. The analysis of the use of 'unascertained' for sudden unexpected deaths in infancy from 1988 to 2010. Arch Dis Child 2014; 99:300-1. [PMID: 24265413 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
49
|
Sully BGO, Julious SA, Nicholl J. An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials. Trials 2014; 15:61. [PMID: 24533447 PMCID: PMC3945066 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-61] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2013] [Accepted: 01/23/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Publicly funded trials regularly fail to recruit their target sample size or find a significant positive result. Adaptive clinical trials which may partly mediate against the problems are not often applied. In this paper we investigate the potential of a form of adaption in a clinical trial - a futility analysis - to see if it has potential to improve publicly funded trials. Methods Outcome data from trials funded by two UK bodies, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), were collected. These data were then used to simulate each trial with a single futility analysis using conditional power, undertaken after 50% to 90% of the patients had been recruited. Thirty-three trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 met the inclusion criteria. Stopping boundaries of conditional powers of 20%, 30% and 40% were considered and outcomes included the number of trials successfully stopped and number of patients saved. Results Inclusion of a futility analysis after 75% of the patients had been recruited would have potentially resulted in 10 trials, which went on to have negative results, correctly stopping for futility using a stopping boundary of 30%. A total of 807 patients across all the trials would potentially have been saved using these futility parameters. The proportion of studies successfully recruiting would also have increased from 45% to 64%. Conclusions A futility assessment has the potential to increase efficiency, save patients and decrease costs in publicly funded trials. While there are logistical issues in undertaking futility assessments we recommend that investigators should aim to include a futility analysis in their trial design wherever possible.
Collapse
|
50
|
Horspool MJ, Julious SA, Boote J, Bradburn MJ, Cooper CL, Davis S, Elphick H, Norman P, Smithson WH, vanStaa T. Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial. Trials 2013; 14:297. [PMID: 24041259 PMCID: PMC4016495 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2013] [Accepted: 09/04/2013] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Within the UK, during September, there is a pronounced increase in the number of unscheduled medical contacts by school-aged children (4-16 years) with asthma. It is thought that that this might be caused by the return back to school after the summer holidays, suddenly mixing with other children again and picking up viruses which could affect their asthma. There is also a drop in the number of prescriptions administered in August. It is possible therefore that children might not be taking their medication as they should during the summer contributing to them becoming ill when they return to school.It is hoped that a simple intervention from the GP to parents of children with asthma at the start of the summer holiday period, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication can help prevent increased asthma exacerbation, and unscheduled NHS appointments, following return to school in September. METHODS/DESIGN PLEASANT is a cluster randomised trial. A total of 140 General Practices (GPs) will be recruited into the trial; 70 GPs randomised to the intervention and 70 control practices of "usual care". An average practice is expected to have approximately 100 children (aged 4-16 with a diagnosis of asthma) hence observational data will be collected on around 14000 children over a 24-month period. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink will collect all data required for the study which includes diagnostic, prescription and referral data. DISCUSSION The trial will assess whether the intervention can reduce exacerbation of asthma and unscheduled medical contacts in school-aged children associated with the return to school after the summer holidays. It has the potential to benefit the health and quality of life of children with asthma while also improving the effectiveness of NHS services by reducing NHS use in one of the busiest months of the year.An exploratory health economic analysis will gauge any cost saving associated with the intervention and subsequent impacts on quality of life. If results for the intervention are positive it is hoped that this could be adopted as part of routine care management of childhood asthma in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current controlled trials: ISRCTN03000938 (assigned 19/10/12) http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN03000938/. UKCRN ID 13572.
Collapse
|