Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?

Tuberculosis preventive therapy: scientific and ethical considerations for trials of ultra-short regimens

Preventive therapy remains key to the elimination of tuberculosis and is typically offered to people with presumptive Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection to prevent active disease. Although the duration of tuberculosis preventive therapy has been reduced substantially over time, it remains long in absolute terms, and uptake remains low. Treatment-shortening trials using non-inferiority designs have so far led to the implementation of effective regimens of 1-4 months' duration. Such regimens are a substantial improvement on the previous 6-9 months' duration standard of care but still far too long given potential toxicity and the very low baseline risk of disease for most individuals. The efficacy of even shorter tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens, including ultra-short regimens shorter than 2 weeks' duration, is yet to be explored, but optimal public health outcomes might be achieved even if the efficacy of such regimens is lower than that of the standard of care. Greater acceptability could lead to higher population uptake, and, potentially, to more cases of tuberculosis avoided. Nonetheless, the optimal duration of ultra-short tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens cannot be explored through classic two-arm non-inferiority trials. Instead, the relationship between different durations and efficacy of tuberculosis preventive therapy will need to be characterised, requiring some participants to be randomly assigned to no (or delayed) therapy in order to characterise the number of tuberculosis cases averted by the shortest options. We argue that such trials are needed to identify the optimal trade-off between efficacy and acceptability and would be ethically acceptable provided there were appropriate risk mitigation measures for participants, including careful monitoring for the development of active disease. In this Personal View, we discuss some of the scientific and ethical considerations around the investigation of ultra-short-course preventive therapy for tuberculosis.

Large simple randomized controlled trials-from drugs to medical devices: lessons from recent experience

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of modern evidence-based medicine. They are considered essential to establish definitive evidence of efficacy and safety for new drugs, and whenever possible they should also be the preferred method for investigating new high-risk medical devices. Well-designed studies robustly inform clinical practice guidelines and decision-making, but administrative obstacles have made it increasingly difficult to conduct informative RCTs. The obstacles are compounded for RCTs of high-risk medical devices by extra costs related to the interventional procedure that is needed to implant the device, challenges with willingness to randomize patients throughout a trial, and difficulties in ensuring proper blinding even with sham procedures. One strategy that may help is to promote the wider use of simpler and more streamlined RCTs using data that are collected routinely during healthcare delivery. Recent large simple RCTs have successfully compared the performance of drugs and of high-risk medical devices, against alternative treatments; they enrolled many patients in a short time, limited costs, and improved efficiency, while also achieving major impact. From a task conducted within the CORE-MD project, we report from our combined experience of designing and conducting large pharmaceutical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, and of planning and coordinating large registry-based RCTs of cardiovascular devices. We summarize the essential principles and utility of large simple RCTs, likely applicable to all interventions but especially in order to promote their wider adoption to evaluate new medical devices.

Balancing precision and affordability in assessing infant development in large-scale mortality trials: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Large-scale mortality trials require reliable secondary assessments of impairment. We compared the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3), a screening tool self-administered by parents, in classifying impairment using the 'gold standard' Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley-III), a diagnostic tool administered by trained assessors.

DESIGN

Analysis of 405 children around 2 years corrected age from the Australian Placental Transfusion Study, a trial conducted over 8 years.

SETTING

Secondary analysis of international, open-label, multicentre randomised trial.

PATIENTS

Children born <30 weeks gestation.

INTERVENTIONS

Immediate (<10 s) versus delayed (60 s+) cord clamping.

MAIN OUTCOMES

ASQ-3 and Bayley-III assessments around 2 years corrected age. Impairment (or developmental delay) was defined as <2 SD below the mean (<70) for Bayley-III domains.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating curve for ASQ-3 domains predicting delay was 0.75-0.99. Sensitivity for predicting delay was 57%-100%, while specificity was 88%-90%.We modelled the cost and sample size using a less expensive, though less precise, screening assessment for impairment compared with a more costly diagnostic assessment. For detecting a 25% reduction in the relative risk of delay, using ASQ-3 rather than Bayley-III could require double the sample size (15 000 to 30 000), but outcome assessment cost savings would be US$13M (EUR$12M). However, assessment cost savings may be outweighed by upscaling.

CONCLUSIONS

When measuring developmental outcomes in a large-scale clinical trial, using a more precise diagnostic tool may be financially prohibitive, so increasing the sample size and using a less precise but appropriately calibrated tool may be more affordable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12610000633088.

Rationale and design of a large trial of perioperative ketamine for prevention of chronic post-surgical pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) is recognised as one of the most common and debilitating complications of major surgery. Progression from acute to chronic pain after surgery involves sensitisation of central nervous system pathways with the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor having a central role. Ketamine is a potent, non-selective NMDA antagonist commonly used for management of acute postoperative pain. Inconsistent but largely supportive evidence from small trials of a preventative effect of perioperative ketamine on CPSP risk suggests that a confirmative large trial is needed.

METHODS

The ROCKet (Reduction Of Chronic Post-surgical Pain with Ketamine) Trial is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, individually randomised superiority trial conducted in 36 hospitals across Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. The trial aims to recruit 4884 patients undergoing abdominal, thoracic, or major orthopaedic surgery. Eligible participants are randomised equally to perioperative intravenous ketamine or placebo for up to 72 h. Incidence of pain in the area of the index surgery is measured by structured telephone interview at 3 months (primary trial endpoint) and 12 months. Pain severity, nature, and associated psychological and quality of life indices are measured using the modified Brief Pain Inventory short form, Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire, Kessler K-10 Psychological Distress Scale, Pain Catastrophising Scale, EQ-5D-3L, and measures of healthcare utilisation and costs. The trial is being conducted by the Department of Critical Care, University of Melbourne, and the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network. The trial is funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

DISCUSSION

The ROCKet trial will clarify the effectiveness of ketamine in primary prevention of CPSP. In addition, it will provide high-quality, prospective data on the epidemiology of CPSP which will better inform further research into prevention and management of CPSP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617001619336) on the date of 12/11/2017.

Design and rationale for an empirical investigation of the resource use and costs of investigator-initiated randomized trials in Switzerland, the UK, and Germany

BACKGROUND

Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs.

METHODS

The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries.

DISCUSSION

This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021.

Investigating the Heterogeneity of "Study Twins"

Meta-analyses are commonly performed based on random-effects models, while in certain cases one might also argue in favor of a common-effect model. One such case may be given by the example of two "study twins" that are performed according to a common (or at least very similar) protocol. Here we investigate the particular case of meta-analysis of a pair of studies, for example, summarizing the results of two confirmatory clinical trials in phase III of a clinical development program. Thereby, we focus on the question of to what extent homogeneity or heterogeneity may be discernible and include an empirical investigation of published ("twin") pairs of studies. A pair of estimates from two studies only provide very little evidence of homogeneity or heterogeneity of effects, and ad hoc decision criteria may often be misleading.

Azithromycin to Reduce Mortality - An Adaptive Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Twice-yearly mass distribution of azithromycin to children is a promising intervention to reduce childhood mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization recommended restricting distribution to infants 1 to 11 months of age to mitigate antimicrobial resistance, although this more limited treatment had not yet been tested.

METHODS

We randomly assigned rural communities in Niger to four twice-yearly distributions of azithromycin for children 1 to 59 months of age (child azithromycin group), four twice-yearly distributions of azithromycin for infants 1 to 11 months of age and placebo for children 12 to 59 months of age (infant azithromycin group), or placebo for children 1 to 59 months of age. Census workers who were not aware of the group assignments monitored mortality twice yearly over the course of 2 years. We assessed three primary community-level mortality outcomes (deaths per 1000 person-years), each examining a different age group and pairwise group comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 1273 communities were randomly assigned to the child azithromycin group (1229 were included in the analysis), 773 to the infant azithromycin group (751 included in the analysis), and 954 to the placebo group (929 included in the analysis). Among 382,586 children, 419,440 person-years and 5503 deaths were recorded. Lower mortality among children 1 to 59 months of age was observed in the child azithromycin group (11.9 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.3 to 12.6) than in the placebo group (13.9 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 13.0 to 14.8) (representing 14% lower mortality with azithromycin; 95% CI, 7 to 22; P<0.001). Mortality among infants 1 to 11 months of age was not significantly lower in the infant azithromycin group (22.3 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 20.0 to 24.7) than in the placebo group (23.9 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 21.6 to 26.2) (representing 6% lower mortality with azithromycin; 95% CI, -8 to 19). Five serious adverse events were reported: three in the placebo group, one in the infant azithromycin group, and one in the child azithromycin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Azithromycin distributions to children 1 to 59 months of age significantly reduced mortality and was more effective than treatment of infants 1 to 11 months of age. Antimicrobial resistance must be monitored. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; AVENIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04224987.).

Silence is golden, but my measures still see-why cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures in large simple trials can be more cost-effective than gold standards

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures, such as a short questionnaire, for large simple clinical trials.

BACKGROUND

To detect associations reliably, trials must avoid bias and random error. To reduce random error, we can increase the size of the trial and increase the accuracy of the outcome measurement process. However, with fixed resources, there is a trade-off between the number of participants a trial can enrol and the amount of information that can be collected on each participant during data collection.

METHODS

To consider the effect on measurement error of using outcome scales with varying numbers of categories, we define and calculate the variance from categorisation that would be expected from using a category midpoint; define the analytic conditions under which such a measure is cost-effective; use meta-regression to estimate the impact of participant burden, defined as questionnaire length, on response rates; and develop an interactive web-app to allow researchers to explore the cost-effectiveness of using such a measure under plausible assumptions.

RESULTS

An outcome scale with only a few categories greatly reduced the variance of non-measurement. For example, a scale with five categories reduced the variance of non-measurement by 96% for a uniform distribution. We show that a simple measure will be more cost-effective than a gold-standard measure if the relative increase in variance due to using it is less than the relative increase in cost from the gold standard, assuming it does not introduce bias in the measurement. We found an inverse power law relationship between participant burden and response rates such that a doubling the burden on participants reduces the response rate by around one third. Finally, we created an interactive web-app ( https://benjiwoolf.shinyapps.io/cheapbutnoisymeasures/ ) to allow exploration of when using a cheap-but-noisy measure will be more cost-effective using realistic parameters.

CONCLUSION

Cheaper-but-noisier questionnaires containing just a few questions can be a cost-effective way of maximising power. However, their use requires a judgement on the trade-off between the potential increase in risk of information bias and the reduction in the potential of selection bias due to the expected higher response rates.

Evidence-based medicine or statistically manipulated medicine? Are we slaves to the P-value?

First popularized almost a century ago in epidemiologic research by Ronald Fisher and Jerzy Neyman, the P-value has become perhaps the most misunderstood and even misused statistical value or descriptor. Indeed, modern clinical research has now come to be centered around and guided by an arbitrary P-value of <0.05 as a magical threshold for significance, so much so that experimental design, reporting of experimental findings, and interpretation and adoption of such findings have become largely dependent on this "significant" P-value. This has given rise to multiple biases in the overall body of biomedical literature that threatens the very validity of clinical research. Ultimately, a drive toward reporting a "significant" P-value (by various statistical manipulations) risks creating a falsely positive body of science, leading to (i) wasted resources in pursuing fruitless research and (ii) futile or even harmful policies/therapeutic recommendations. This article reviews the history of the P-value, the conceptual basis of P-value in the context of hypothesis testing and challenges in critically appraising clinical evidence vis-à-vis the P-value. This review is aimed at raising awareness of the pitfalls of this rigid observation of the threshold of statistical significance when evaluating clinical trials and to generate discussion regarding whether the scientific body needs a rethink about how we decide clinical significance.

2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG

In October 2021, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) jointly agreed to establish a Task Force (TF) to review recommendations of the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization as they apply to patients with left main (LM) disease with low-to-intermediate SYNTAX score (0-32). This followed the withdrawal of support by the EACTS in 2019 for the recommendations about the management of LM disease of the previous guideline. The TF was asked to review all new relevant data since the 2018 guidelines including updated aggregated data from the four randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LM disease. This document represents a summary of the work of the TF; suggested updated recommendations for the choice of revascularization modality in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization for LM disease are included. In stable patients with an indication for revascularization for LM disease, with coronary anatomy suitable for both procedures and a low predicted surgical mortality, the TF concludes that both treatment options are clinically reasonable based on patient preference, available expertise, and local operator volumes. The suggested recommendations for revascularization with CABG are Class I, Level of Evidence A. The recommendations for PCI are Class IIa, Level of Evidence A. The TF recognized several important gaps in knowledge related to revascularization in patients with LM disease and recognizes that aggregated data from the four randomized trials were still only large enough to exclude large differences in mortality.

2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG

Task Force structure and summary of clinical evidence of 2022 ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; LM, left main; SYNTAX, Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery. a'Event' refers to the composite of death, myocardial infarction (according to Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction if available, otherwise protocol defined) or stroke. In October 2021, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) jointly agreed to establish a Task Force (TF) to review recommendations of the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization as they apply to patients with left main (LM) disease with low-to-intermediate SYNTAX score (0-32). This followed the withdrawal of support by the EACTS in 2019 for the recommendations about the management of LM disease of the previous guideline. The TF was asked to review all new relevant data since the 2018 guidelines including updated aggregated data from the four randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LM disease. This document represents a summary of the work of the TF; suggested updated recommendations for the choice of revascularization modality in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization for LM disease are included. In stable patients with an indication for revascularization for LM disease, with coronary anatomy suitable for both procedures and a low predicted surgical mortality, the TF concludes that both treatment options are clinically reasonable based on patient preference, available expertise, and local operator volumes. The suggested recommendations for revascularization with CABG are Class I, Level of Evidence A. The recommendations for PCI are Class IIa, Level of Evidence A. The TF recognized several important gaps in knowledge related to revascularization in patients with LM disease and recognizes that aggregated data from the four randomized trials were still only large enough to exclude large differences in mortality.

Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting.

RESULTS

Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.

CONCLUSION

Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

To guide future practice, perinatal trials should be much larger, simpler and less fragile with close to 100% ascertainment of mortality and other key outcomes

The Australian Placental Transfusion Study (APTS) randomised 1,634 fetuses to delayed (≥60 s) versus immediate (≤10 s) clamping of the umbilical cord. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses, including this and similar trials, show that delaying clamping in preterm infants reduces mortality and need for blood transfusions. Amongst 1,531 infants in APTS followed up at two years, aiming to delay clamping for 60 s or more reduced the relative risk of the primary composite outcome of death or disability by 17% (p = 0.01). However, this result is fragile because nominal statistical significance (p < 0.05) would be abolished by only 2 patients switching from a non-event to an event, and the primary composite outcome was missing in 112 patients (7%). To achieve more robust evidence, any future trials should emulate the large, simple trials co-ordinated from Oxford which reliably identified moderate, incremental improvements in mortality in tens of thousands of participants, with <1% missing data. Those who fund, regulate, and conduct trials that aim to change practice should repay the trust of those who consent to participate by doing everything possible to minimise missing data for key outcomes.

The landscape of investigator-initiated oncology trials conducted in mainland China during the past decade (2010-2019)

The number of clinical trials conducted in mainland China, including investigator-initiated trials (IITs), has increased rapidly in recent years. However, there are few data on the characteristics of cancer-related IITs. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the landscape of cancer-related IITs in mainland China in the past decade. All cancer-related IITs registered on two clinical trial registries in the United States (www.clinicaltrials.gov, CT.gov) and mainland China (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR) from 2010 to 2019 were identified. IITs were reviewed manually to validate classification, subcategorized by cancer type, and stratified by design characteristics to facilitate comparison across cancer types and with other specialties. A total of 8199 cancer-related IITs were identified. The number of trials registered annually increased over time, especially in the last 5 years. Although interventional studies were predominant, randomized double-blind studies accounted for only 8% of IITs. In the past decade, the trend for interventional studies conducted with different drugs increased year on year, although the increase in hormonal therapy IITs was not significant. Additionally, cancer-related IITs were unevenly geographically distributed, with half concentrated in the economically developed cities Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangdong. We also found an increase in registration before participant enrollment (64.9% for trials in conducted in 2015-2019 vs. 40.2% in 2010-2014, p < 0.001) and data monitoring committee use (44.5% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.001) and a decrease in randomization (51.5% vs. 62.7%, p < 0.001) and funding (36.4% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001) between these periods. We also observed changes in intervention type (decrease in cytotoxic drug therapy [34.8% vs. 48.9%, p < 0.001]; increase in targeted therapy [17.8% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.004], immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy [6.6% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001], and immune cell therapy [9.6% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001]). Details of cancer-related IITs conducted during the past decade illustrate the merits of oncology research in mainland China. Although the increased quantity of IITs is encouraging, limitations remain regarding the quality of clinical trials, regional imbalances, and funding allocation.

Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials

BACKGROUND

The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont Report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise.

RESULTS

The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged, and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

Vaccine Preparedness for the Next Influenza Pandemic: A Regulatory Perspective

The response to SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated the tremendous potential of investments in vaccine research and development to impact a global pandemic, resulting in the rapid development and deployment of lifesaving vaccines. However, this unprecedented speed was insufficient to either effectively combat initial waves of the pandemic or adapt in real time to new variants. This review focuses on opportunities from a public health oriented regulatory perspective for enhancing research, development, evaluation, production, and monitoring of safety and effectiveness to facilitate more rapid availability of pandemic influenza vaccines. We briefly review regulatory pathways and processes relevant to pandemic influenza, including how they can be strengthened and globally coordinated. We then focus on what we believe are critical opportunities to provide better approaches, tools, and methods to accelerate and improve vaccine development and evaluation and thus greatly enhance pandemic preparedness. In particular, for the improved vaccines needed to respond to a future influenza pandemic better and more rapidly, moving as much of the development and evaluation process as possible into the pre-pandemic period is critical, including through approval and use of analogous seasonal influenza vaccines with defined immune correlates of protection.

Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Trial was set up in March 2020 to evaluate treatments for people hospitalised with COVID-19. To maximise recruitment it was designed to fit into routine clinical care throughout the UK, and as a result it has enrolled more patients than any other COVID-19 treatment trial. RECOVERY has shown four drugs to be life-saving - dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab-imdevimab - and a further six have been shown to be of little or no benefit. In each case, results from RECOVERY were clear enough to rapidly influence global practice. Some of the reasons for this success relate to its particular setting in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but many are generalisable to other contexts. In particular, its focus on recruiting large numbers of patients to identify or rule out moderate but worthwhile benefits of treatment, and the design decisions that followed from this. Similar large streamlined trials could produce similarly clear answers about the treatment of many other common diseases.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of standard care versus steroids plus standard care for treatment of pneumonia in adults admitted to Kenyan hospitals (SONIA)

Background: It is unclear if adjunctive steroid therapy reduces mortality in community-acquired pneumonia, as very few studies have had mortality as a primary outcome. This question has become even more relevant following demonstration of a mortality benefit of dexamethasone when used in patients with COVID-19 who had severe disease. This has led to increased prescription of steroids in adults with community acquired pneumonia in low-resource settings even when their COVID-19 diagnosis is uncertain due to low testing rates. This pragmatic parallel randomised-controlled open-label trial will determine if adjunctive low-dose steroids for treatment of adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia whose SARS-CoV-2 status is either unknown or negative reduces mortality. Methods: We will enroll and randomize 2180 patients admitted with a clinical diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia into two arms; in Stratum A-participants will receive standard care for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. In Stratum B-participants will receive a 10-day course of low-dose oral corticosteroids in addition to standard care. All participants will be followed up to 30 days post randomization and their final status recorded (alive or dead). An immunology sub study will be conducted on a subset of the trial participants (50 per arm) to determine the correlation of pre-existing and treatment induced immune and metabolic changes with study outcomes. Discussion: Mortality among adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia in resource-limited settings is high. Steroids are readily available in these settings. If the addition of steroids to standard care for community acquired pneumonia is found to be beneficial, this easily scalable intervention would significantly reduce the currently high mortality associated with the illness.

The genome sequence of the acorn piercer, Pammene fasciana (Linnaeus, 1761)

We present a genome assembly from an individual male Pammene fasciana (acorn piercer; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Tortricidae). The genome sequence is 564 megabases in span. The majority of the assembly (99.94%) is scaffolded into 28 chromosomal pseudomolecules with the Z sex chromosome assembled. The complete mitochondrial genome was also assembled and is 16.4 kilobases in length.

Digital Health-Enabled Clinical Trials in Stroke: Ready for Prime Time?

As stroke continues to represent a major global health care problem, advancing our knowledge of new effective and safe stroke interventions represents a public health priority. The identification of these therapies requires the conduct of high-quality and well-powered randomized clinical trials. Despite its potential to inform clinical practice, traditional randomized clinical trial models have their drawbacks, including elevated costs, long completion times, failure to recruit the target sample sizes, lack of diversity, and complex operational procedures. Therefore, improving the participants' experience and trials' overall efficiency constitutes an important unmet need. Innovative models such as virtual and decentralized patient-centric trials have been proposed as a valuable strategy in this pursuit. In this narrative review, we discuss the limitations of traditional randomized clinical trial models and present the concept, advantages, and challenges of decentralized digitally enabled approaches to the conduct of stroke clinical trials.

Challenges in Interpreting Obstetrics and Gynecology Literature

The field of obstetrics and gynecology is constantly replenished with the newest research findings. In an era of rapidly available study publications, there are a number of challenges to interpreting the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Common pitfalls include the over reliance on the dichotomized P-value, lack of transparency, bias in study reporting, limitations of resources, absence of standardized practices and outcomes in study design, and the rare concerns for data integrity. We review these predominant challenges and their potential solutions, in interpreting the obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

Clinical Trials Using Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Spinal Cord Injury: Challenges in Generating Evidence

Spinal cord injury (SCI) remains an important public health problem which often causes permanent loss of muscle strength, sensation, and function below the site of the injury, generating physical, psychological, and social impacts throughout the lives of the affected individuals, since there are no effective treatments available. The use of stem cells has been investigated as a therapeutic approach for the treatment of SCI. Although a significant number of studies have been conducted in pre-clinical and clinical settings, so far there is no established cell therapy for the treatment of SCI. One aspect that makes it difficult to evaluate the efficacy is the heterogeneity of experimental designs in the clinical trials that have been published. Cell transplantation methods vary widely among the trials, and there are still no standardized protocols or recommendations for the therapeutic use of stem cells in SCI. Among the different cell types, mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) are the most frequently tested in clinical trials for SCI treatment. This study reviews the clinical applications of MSCs for SCI, focusing on the critical analysis of 17 clinical trials published thus far, with emphasis on their design and quality. Moreover, it highlights the need for more evidence-based studies designed as randomized controlled trials and potential challenges to be addressed in context of stem cell therapies for SCI.

Clinical Evidence Generation During a Pandemic: Lessons Learned for Sustaining Progress

Because of significant adaptations forced by the COVID-19 pandemic, resultant changes within health care delivery and clinical research introduced the potential for evaluation of novel evidence generation approaches in oncology. On July 26 and 27, 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, National Cancer Policy Forum hosted a virtual workshop entitled “Cancer Care and Cancer Research in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Workshop on Lessons Learned.” This workshop examined changes in cancer care and cancer research that occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and considered lessons learned from that experience. The goal was to identify what changes could improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care and the conduct of cancer clinical trials in the postpandemic era, with an emphasis on health equity. How can we sustain the valuable lessons learned that might accelerate progress and enhance clinical evidence generation for patients and clinicians? In this overview, we discuss ways in which the COVID-19 experience has catalyzed research efficiencies as well as fostered a broader array of trial design and research methods that may facilitate improved cancer drug development during the pandemic and beyond.

Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments

Health interventions should be tested before being introduced into clinical practice, to find out whether they work and whether they are harmful. However, research studies will only provide reliable answers to these questions if they are appropriately designed and analysed. But these are not trivial tasks. We review some methodological challenges that arise when evaluating fertility interventions and explain the implications for a non-statistical audience. These include flexibility in outcomes and analyses; use of surrogate outcomes instead of live birth; use of inappropriate denominators; evaluating cumulative outcomes and time to live birth; allowing each patient or couple to contribute to a research study more than once. We highlight recurring errors and present solutions. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of subfertility, for realising high-quality research.

Lay summary

We do research to find out whether fertility treatments are beneficial and to make sure they don't cause harm. However, research will only provide reliable answers if it is done properly. It is not unusual for researchers to make mistakes when they are designing research studies and analysing the data that we get from them. In this review, we describe some of the mistakes people make when they do research about fertility treatments and explain how to avoid them. These include challenges which arise due to the large number of things that can be measured and reported when looking to see if fertility treatments work; failure to check whether the treatment increases the number of live births; failing to include all study participants in calculations;challenges in studies where participants may have more than one treatment attempt. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of fertility problems.

When Can We Rely on Real-World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. The RWE label has been used to refer to a variety of departures from the methods of traditional randomized controlled trials. Recognizing this complexity and potential confusion, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a series of workshops to clarify and address questions regarding the use of RWE to evaluate new medical treatments. Those workshops identified three specific dimensions in which RWE studies might differ from traditional clinical trials: use of real-world data (data extracted from health system records or data captured by mobile devices), delivery of real-world treatment (open-label treatments delivered in community settings by community practitioners), and real-world treatment assignment (including nonrandomized comparisons and variations on random assignment such as before-after or stepped-wedge designs). For any RWE study, decisions regarding each of these dimensions depends on the specific research question, characteristics of the potential study settings, and characteristics of the settings where study results would be applied.

Can Systems Biology Advance Clinical Precision Oncology?

Precision oncology is perceived as a way forward to treat individual cancer patients. However, knowing particular cancer mutations is not enough for optimal therapeutic treatment, because cancer genotype-phenotype relationships are nonlinear and dynamic. Systems biology studies the biological processes at the systems' level, using an array of techniques, ranging from statistical methods to network reconstruction and analysis, to mathematical modeling. Its goal is to reconstruct the complex and often counterintuitive dynamic behavior of biological systems and quantitatively predict their responses to environmental perturbations. In this paper, we review the impact of systems biology on precision oncology. We show examples of how the analysis of signal transduction networks allows to dissect resistance to targeted therapies and inform the choice of combinations of targeted drugs based on tumor molecular alterations. Patient-specific biomarkers based on dynamical models of signaling networks can have a greater prognostic value than conventional biomarkers. These examples support systems biology models as valuable tools to advance clinical and translational oncological research.

Challenges and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Trials: Should We Be Doing Clinical Trials Differently?

The COVID-19 crisis led to a flurry of clinical trials activity. The COVID-evidence database shows 2814 COVID-19 randomized trials registered as of February 16, 2021. Most were small (only 18% have a planned sample size > 500) and the rare completed ones have not provided published results promptly (only 283 trial publications as of February 2021). Small randomized trials and observational, nonrandomized analyses have not had a successful track record and have generated misleading expectations. Different large trials on the same intervention have generally been far more efficient in producing timely and consistent evidence. The rapid generation of evidence and accelerated dissemination of results have led to new challenges for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (eg, rapid, living, and scoping reviews). Pressure to regulatory agencies has also mounted with massive emergency authorizations, but some of them have had to be revoked. Pandemic circumstances have disrupted the way trials are conducted; therefore, new methods have been developed and adopted more widely to facilitate recruitment, consent, and overall trial conduct. On the basis of the COVID-19 experience and its challenges, planning of several large, efficient trials, and wider use of adaptive designs might change the future of clinical research. Pragmatism, integration in clinical care, efficient administration, promotion of collaborative structures, and enhanced integration of existing data and facilities might be several of the legacies of COVID-19 on future randomized trials.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop

BACKGROUND

Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.

METHODS

We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups.

RESULTS

Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I² = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.

LIMITATION

The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about.

CONCLUSION

We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

Four consecutive yearly point-prevalence studies in Wales indicate lack of improvement in sepsis care on the wards

The ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016–2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full ‘Sepsis Six’ care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1–26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017–2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice.

Trial registration Defining Sepsis on the Wards ISRCTN 86502304 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86502304 prospectively registered 09/05/2016.

Menopausal hormone therapy and women's health: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

There remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women's health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, p < 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p = 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, p = 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29, p = 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58, p = 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412).

CONCLUSIONS

MHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.

Evolution of Evidence-Based Medicine in Stroke

The introduction and evolution of evidence-based stroke medicine has realized major advances in our knowledge about stroke, methods of medical research, and patient outcomes that continue to complement traditional individual patient care. It is humbling to recall the state of knowledge and scientific endeavour of our forebears who were unaware of what we know now and yet pursued the highest standards for evaluating and delivering effective stroke care. The science of stroke medicine has evolved from pathophysiological theory to empirical testing. Progress has been steady, despite inevitable disappointments and cul-de-sacs, and has occasionally been punctuated by sensational breakthroughs, such as the advent of reperfusion therapies guided by imaging.

Making trials part of good clinical care: lessons from the RECOVERY trial

When COVID-19 hit the UK in early 2020, there were no known treatments for a condition that results in the death of around one in four patients hospitalised with this disease. Around the world, possible treatments were administered to huge numbers of patients, without any reliable assessments of safety and efficacy. The rapid generation of high-quality evidence was vital. RECOVERY is a streamlined, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, which was set up in response to this challenge. As of April 2021, over 39,000 patients have been enrolled from 178 hospital sites in the UK. Within 100 days of its initiation, RECOVERY demonstrated that dexamethasone improves survival for patients with severe disease; a result that was rapidly implemented in the UK and internationally saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Importantly, it also showed that other widely used treatments (such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) have no meaningful benefit for hospitalised patients. This was only possible through randomisation of large numbers of patients and the adoption of streamlined and pragmatic procedures focused on quality, together with widespread collaboration focused on a single goal. RECOVERY illustrates how clinical trials and healthcare can be integrated, even in a pandemic. This approach provides new opportunities to generate the evidence needed for high-quality healthcare not only for a pandemic but for the many other conditions that place a burden on patients and the healthcare system.

State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials

Introduction

Ideally, health conditions causing the greatest global disease burden should attract increased research attention. We conducted a comprehensive global study investigating the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published on different health conditions, and how this compares with the global disease burden that they impose.

Methods

We use machine learning to monitor PubMed daily, and find and analyse RCT reports. We assessed RCTs investigating the leading causes of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease study. Using regression models, we compared numbers of actual RCTs in different health conditions to numbers predicted from their global disease burden (disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). We investigated whether RCT numbers differed for conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socioeconomic development.

Results

We estimate 463 000 articles describing RCTs (95% prediction interval 439 000 to 485 000) were published from 1990 to July 2020. RCTs recruited a median of 72 participants (IQR 32–195). 82% of RCTs were conducted by researchers in the top fifth of countries by socio-economic development. As DALYs increased for a particular health condition by 10%, the number of RCTs in the same year increased by 5% (3.2%–6.9%), but the association was weak (adjusted R²=0.13). Conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socioeconomic development, including respiratory infections and tuberculosis (7000 RCTs below predicted) and enteric infections (9700 RCTs below predicted), appear relatively under-researched for their disease burden. Each 10% shift in DALYs towards countries with low and middle socioeconomic development was associated with a 4% reduction in RCTs (3.7%–4.9%). These disparities have not changed substantially over time.

Conclusion

Research priorities are not well optimised to reduce the global burden of disease. Most RCTs are produced by highly developed countries, and the health needs of these countries have been, on average, favoured.

Practices and Attitudes of Swiss Stakeholders Regarding Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Funding Acquisition and Cost Management

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are an essential method of evaluating health care interventions and a cornerstone for evidence-based health care. However, RCTs have become increasingly complex and costly, which is particularly challenging for independent investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs). IICTs have an essential role in clinical research, and it is important that efforts are made to ensure IICTs are adequately funded and are conducted cost-effectively.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this qualitative study, interviews were conducted in Switzerland between February and August 2020. The purposive sample comprised 48 stakeholders from 4 different groups: primary investigators (n = 27), funders and sponsors (n = 9), clinical trial support organizations (n = 6), and ethics committee members (n = 6).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Practices and attitudes of stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management were assessed using individual semistructured qualitative interviews. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

After interviews with 48 IICT stakeholders (75% male presenting), these participants identified a systemic problem of IICTs being underfunded, which can lead to compromises being made regarding the quality and conduct of IICTs. Participants identified 2 overarching and interconnected groups of reasons why IICTs in Switzerland are regularly underfunded. First, it was reported that IICT budget estimations are often inaccurate because of poor planning and preparation, unforeseeable events, investigators intentionally underestimating budgets, and limited budget assessment and oversight. Second, with the exception of a specific IICT funding program by the Swiss National Science Foundation, it was reported that limited funding sources and unrealistic expectation of funders led to underlying challenges in getting IICTs fully funded. A number of measures that could help reduce the underfunding of IICTs were identified, including improving the support of investigators and IICTs, strengthening networking and guidance, harmonizing and simplifying bureaucracy, and increasing public funding of IICTs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights the inadequate expertise of Swiss stakeholders to correctly, systematically, and reproducibly calculate RCT budgets and the need for transparency on trial costs as well as training in budgeting practices. Limited financial resources for academic clinical research and issues regarding the professional planning and conduct of IICTs are persistent issues that many other countries also face.

Current landscape of type 1 diabetes mellitus-related interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study

AIMS

A better understanding of the current features of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)-related interventional clinical trials is important for improving clinical trial designs and identifying neglected research areas. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively assess T1DM-related interventional clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, T1DM-related clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched on July 1, 2020. The characteristics of the relevant trials were assessed. PubMed and Google Scholar were used to search for publication statuses of primary completed studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,421 T1DM-related interventional clinical trials were identified for analysis. Of those trials, 509 (35.8%) involved children and 912 (64.2%) involved only adults. Overall, 63.2% of trials enrolled < 50 participants and 61.9% were registered after patient recruitment. Most trials were single-centered (66.0%). The proportions of trials with children were higher than those with only adults with respect to the primary purpose of health service or prevention (13.6% vs. 4.8%), intervention of device (30.8% vs. 23.9%), education or lifestyle (28.9% vs. 11.3%), and dietary supplement (5.7% vs. 2.5%) (all P < 0.01). Only 24.0% of trials had available results after primary completion. The 5-year cumulative publication rate after primary trial completion was < 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

T1DM-related interventional clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were dominated by small single-center studies. Most trials lacked the availability of results and their respective publications. Large multicenter interventional clinical trials on T1DM are needed, and more attention should be paid to improve the publication and dissemination of clinical trials results.

Age-based targeting of biannual azithromycin distribution for child survival in Niger: an adaptive cluster-randomized trial protocol (AVENIR)

BACKGROUND

Biannual distribution of azithromycin to children 1-59 months old reduced mortality by 14% in a cluster-randomized trial. The World Health Organization has proposed targeting this intervention to the subgroup of children 1-11 months old to reduce selection for antimicrobial resistance. Here, we describe a trial designed to determine the impact of age-based targeting of biannual azithromycin on mortality and antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS

AVENIR is a cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, response-adaptive large simple trial in Niger. During the 2.5-year study period, 3350 communities are targeted for enrollment. In the first year, communities in the Dosso region will be randomized 1:1:1 to 1) azithromycin 1-11: biannual azithromycin to children 1-11 months old with placebo to children 12-59 months old, 2) azithromycin 1-59: biannual azithromycin to children 1-59 months old, or 3) placebo: biannual placebo to children 1-59 months old. Regions enrolled after the first year will be randomized with an updated allocation based on the probability of mortality in children 1-59 months in each arm during the preceding study period. A biannual door-to-door census will be conducted to enumerate the population, distribute azithromycin and placebo, and monitor vital status. Primary mortality outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality rate (deaths per 1000 person-years) after 2.5 years from the first enrollment in 1) children 1-59 months old comparing the azithromycin 1-59 and placebo arms, 2) children 1-11 months old comparing the azithromycin 1-11 and placebo arm, and 3) children 12-59 months in the azithromycin 1-11 and azithromycin 1-59 arms. In the Dosso region, 50 communities from each arm will be followed to monitor antimicrobial resistance. Primary resistance outcomes will be assessed after 2 years of distributions and include 1) prevalence of genetic determinants of macrolide resistance in nasopharyngeal samples from children 1-59 months old, and 2) load of genetic determinants of macrolide resistance in rectal samples from children 1-59 months old.

DISCUSSION

As high-mortality settings consider this intervention, the results of this trial will provide evidence to support programmatic and policy decision-making on age-based strategies for azithromycin distribution to promote child survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered on January 13, 2020 (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04224987 ).

The time is now: role of pragmatic clinical trials in guiding response to global pandemics

Along with its heavy toll of morbidity and mortality, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exposed several limitations of the current global research response. The slow and inefficient process of carrying out traditional randomized clinical trials led regulatory authorities to hastily approve treatments and tests without sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy.

We here outline issues with the current research platform, summarize shortcomings of traditional randomized clinical trials particularly apparent at the time of pandemics, and highlight the advantages of pragmatic clinical trials as an alternative to rapidly generate the needed clinical evidence. We further discuss barriers and challenges to pragmatic clinical trials implementation and explore opportunities for research institutions and regulatory authorities to facilitate widespread adoption of this vital research tool.

As a subsequent wave of COVID-19, and/or another epidemic, are all but inevitable in our lifetime, we must ensure that our research infrastructure is conducive to carrying out pragmatic clinical trials to expeditiously generate the needed evidence and blunt the epidemic’s toll on human lives and livelihoods.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

METHODS

In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

METHODS

In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Adverse Events and Clinic Visits following a Single Dose of Oral Azithromycin among Preschool Children: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Biannual mass azithromycin distribution reduces all-cause child mortality in some settings in sub-Saharan Africa; however, adverse events and short-term infectious outcomes following treatment have not been well characterized. Children aged 0–59 months were recruited in Nouna Town, Burkina Faso, and randomized 1:1 to a single directly observed oral 20 mg/kg dose of azithromycin or placebo. At 14 days after treatment, caregivers were interviewed about adverse event symptoms their child experienced since treatment and if they had sought health care for their child. All children had tympanic temperature measured at the 14-day visit. We compared adverse events and clinic visits using logistic regression models between azithromycin- and placebo-controlled children. Of 450 children enrolled, 230 were randomized to azithromycin and 220 to placebo. On average, children were aged 28 months, and 50.9% were female. Caregivers of 20% of children reported that their child experienced at least one adverse event, with no significant difference between study arms (19.9% azithromycin; 20.0% placebo, logistic regression P = 0.96). Vomiting was more often reported by caregivers of azithromycin-treated children than by those of placebo-treated children (7.2% azithromycin, 1.9% placebo, logistic regression P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in other adverse events or clinic visits. Adverse events following a single oral dose of azithromycin in preschool children were rare and mild. Azithromycin administration appears safe in this population.