The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive Platform Trials in Stroke

Clinical trials of treatments for stroke have generally utilized 2-arm, randomized designs to evaluate a single intervention against a control. Running separate clinical trials, with each addressing a single therapeutic question, is resource intensive and slows evidence generation, especially in a field with rapidly expanding treatment options and evolving practices. Platform trials-randomized clinical trials designed to evaluate multiple interventions that may enter and exit the ongoing platform based on a master protocol-accelerate the investigation of multiple therapeutic options within a single infrastructure. This in turn has the potential to accelerate access to new interventions for patients with stroke that can save lives and improve outcomes. In the context of acute ischemic stroke, 2 new platform trials have been established, the STEP trial (StrokeNet Thrombectomy Endovascular Platform) and ACT-GLOBAL (A Multi-Factorial, Multi-Arm, Multi-Stage, Randomised, Global Adaptive Platform Trial for Stroke), to address multiple therapeutic questions simultaneously using a multifactorial design including Bayesian modeling and other adaptive features. These trials are designed to maximize the information obtained from each participant, to align clinical research more closely with the complexities of clinical care, and to accelerate the identification of effective therapies. This article explores conceptual, practical, and statistical considerations in the design and implementation of adaptive platform trials and highlights their potential to accelerate the identification of new therapies, management, and rehabilitation in stroke.

Innovative approaches for vaccine trials as a key component of pandemic preparedness - a white paper

BACKGROUND

WHO postulates the application of adaptive design features in the global clinical trial ecosystem. However, the adaptive platform trial (APT) methodology has not been widely adopted in clinical research on vaccines.

METHODS

The VACCELERATE Consortium organized a two-day workshop to discuss the applicability of APT methodology in vaccine trials under non-pandemic as well as pandemic conditions. Core aspects of the discussions are summarized in this article.

RESULTS

An "ever-warm" APT appears ideally suited to improve efficiency and speed of vaccine research. Continuous learning based on accumulating APT trial data allows for pre-planned adaptations during its course. Given the relative design complexity, alignment of all stakeholders at all stages of an APT is central. Vaccine trial modelling is crucial, both before and in a pandemic emergency. Various inferential paradigms are possible (frequentist, likelihood, or Bayesian). The focus in the interpandemic interval may be on research gaps left by industry trials. For activation in emergency, template Disease X protocols of syndromal design for pathogens yet unknown need to be stockpiled and updated regularly. Governance of a vaccine APT should be fully integrated into supranational pandemic response mechanisms.

DISCUSSION

A broad range of adaptive features can be applied in platform trials on vaccines. Faster knowledge generation comes with increased complexity of trial design. Design complexity should not preclude simple execution at trial sites. Continuously generated evidence represents a return on investment that will garner societal support for sustainable funding. Adaptive design features will naturally find their way into platform trials on vaccines.

Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: update to the statistical analysis plan for NOTACS, a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The NOTACS trial will assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen therapy (SOT) on the outcomes of patients after cardiac surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

NOTACS is an adaptive, international, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial, with a pre-planned interim sample size re-estimation (SSR). A minimum of 850 patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either HFNT or SOT. The primary outcome is days alive and at home in the first 90 days after the planned surgery (DAH90), with a number of secondary analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses also planned. The interim SSR will take place after a minimum of 300 patients have been followed up for 90 days and will allow for the sample size to increase up to a maximum of 1280 patients.

RESULTS

This manuscript provides detailed descriptions of the design of the NOTACS trial and the analyses to be undertaken at the interim and final analyses. The main purpose of the interim analysis is to assess safety and to perform a sample size re-estimation. The main purpose of the final analysis is to examine the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HFNT compared to SOT on the outcomes of patients after cardiac surgery.

DISCUSSION

This manuscript outlines the key features of the NOTACS statistical analysis plan and was submitted to the journal before the final analysis in order to preserve scientific integrity under an adaptive design framework. A previous version of this SAP was published prior to the interim analysis (Dawson, 2022). The NOTACS SAP closely follows published guidelines for the content of SAPs in clinical trials (Gamble, 2017).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN14092678 . (13 May 2020).

Adaptive Trials in Stroke: Current Use and Future Directions

Inclusion of adaptive design features in a clinical trial provides preplanned flexibility to dynamically modify a trial during its conduct while preserving validity and integrity. Adaptive trials are needed to accelerate the conduct of more efficient, informative, and ethical clinical research in the field of neurology. Stroke is a natural candidate for adoption of these innovative approaches to trial design. This Research Methods in Neurology article is informed by a scoping review that identified 45 completed or ongoing adaptive clinical trials in stroke that were appraised: 15 trials had published results with or without a published protocol and 30 ongoing trials (14 trials had a published protocol, and 16 trials were registered only). Interventions spanned acute (n = 28), rehabilitation (n = 8), prevention (n = 8), and rehabilitation and prevention (n = 1). A subsample of these trials was selected to illustrate the utility of adaptive design features and discuss why each adaptive feature was incorporated in the design to best achieve the aim; whether each individual feature was used and whether it resulted in expected efficiencies; and any learnings during preparation, conduct, or reporting. We then discuss the operational, ethical, and regulatory considerations that warrant careful consideration during adaptive trial planning and reflect on the workforce readiness to deliver adaptive trials in practice. We conclude that adaptive trials can be designed, funded, conducted, and published for a wide range of research questions and offer future directions to support adoption of adaptive trial designs in stroke and neurologic research more broadly.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I

BACKGROUND

Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community.

METHODS

Published studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein.

RESULTS

Out of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7 .

Reporting and communication of sample size calculations in adaptive clinical trials: a review of trial protocols and grant applications

BACKGROUND

An adaptive design allows modifying the design based on accumulated data while maintaining trial validity and integrity. The final sample size may be unknown when designing an adaptive trial. It is therefore important to consider what sample size is used in the planning of the study and how that is communicated to add transparency to the understanding of the trial design and facilitate robust planning. In this paper, we reviewed trial protocols and grant applications on the sample size reporting for randomised adaptive trials.

METHOD

We searched protocols of randomised trials with comparative objectives on ClinicalTrials.gov (01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022). Contemporary eligible grant applications accessed from UK publicly funded researchers were also included. Suitable records of adaptive designs were reviewed, and key information was extracted and descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

We identified 439 records, and 265 trials were eligible. Of these, 164 (61.9%) and 101 (38.1%) were sponsored by industry and public sectors, respectively, with 169 (63.8%) of all trials using a group sequential design although trial adaptations used were diverse. The maximum and minimum sample sizes were the most reported or directly inferred (n = 199, 75.1%). The sample size assuming no adaptation would be triggered was usually set as the estimated target sample size in the protocol. However, of the 152 completed trials, 15 (9.9%) and 33 (21.7%) had their sample size increased or reduced triggered by trial adaptations, respectively. The sample size calculation process was generally well reported in most cases (n = 216, 81.5%); however, the justification for the sample size calculation parameters was missing in 116 (43.8%) trials. Less than half gave sufficient information on the study design operating characteristics (n = 119, 44.9%).

CONCLUSION

Although the reporting of sample sizes varied, the maximum and minimum sample sizes were usually reported. Most of the trials were planned for estimated enrolment assuming no adaptation would be triggered. This is despite the fact a third of reported trials changed their sample size. The sample size calculation was generally well reported, but the justification of sample size calculation parameters and the reporting of the statistical behaviour of the adaptive design could still be improved.

Adding experimental treatment arms to multi-arm multi-stage platform trials in progress

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trials efficiently compare several treatments with a common control arm. Crucially MAMS designs allow for adjustment for multiplicity if required. If for example, the active treatment arms in a clinical trial relate to different dose levels or different routes of administration of a drug, the strict control of the family-wise error rate (FWER) is paramount. Suppose a further treatment becomes available, it is desirable to add this to the trial already in progress; to access both the practical and statistical benefits of the MAMS design. In any setting where control of the error rate is required, we must add corresponding hypotheses without compromising the validity of the testing procedure.To strongly control the FWER, MAMS designs use pre-planned decision rules that determine the recruitment of the next stage of the trial based on the available data. The addition of a treatment arm presents an unplanned change to the design that we must account for in the testing procedure. We demonstrate the use of the conditional error approach to add hypotheses to any testing procedure that strongly controls the FWER. We use this framework to add treatments to a MAMS trial in progress. Simulations illustrate the possible characteristics of such procedures.

The impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of platform trials with normally distributed outcomes

BACKGROUND

A platform trial approach allows adding arms to on-going trials to speed up intervention discovery programs. A control arm remains open for recruitment in a platform trial while intervention arms may be added after the onset of the study and could be terminated early for efficacy and/or futility when early stopping is allowed. The topic of utilising non-concurrent control data in the analysis of platform trials has been explored and discussed extensively. A less familiar issue is the presence of heterogeneity, which may exist for example due to modification of enrolment criteria and recruitment strategy.

METHOD

We conduct a simulation study to explore the impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of a two-stage platform trial design. We consider heterogeneity in treatment effects and heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages for a normally distributed endpoint. We examine the performance of some hypothesis testing procedures and modelling strategies. The use of non-concurrent control data is also considered accordingly. Alongside standard regression analysis, we examine the performance of a novel method that was known as the pairwise trials analysis. It is similar to a network meta-analysis approach but adjusts for treatment comparisons instead of individual studies using fixed effects.

RESULTS

Several testing strategies with concurrent control data seem to control the type I error rate at the required level when there is heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages and/or a random cohort effect. The main parameter of treatment effects in some analysis models correspond to overall treatment effects weighted by stage wise sample sizes; while others correspond to the effect observed within a single stage. The characteristics of the estimates are not affected significantly by the presence of a random cohort effect and/ or heteroscedasticity.

CONCLUSION

In view of heterogeneity in treatment effect across stages, the specification of null hypotheses in platform trials may need to be more subtle. We suggest employing testing procedure of adaptive design as opposed to testing the statistics from regression models; comparing the estimates from the pairwise trials analysis method and the regression model with interaction terms may indicate if heterogeneity is negligible.

Effect of erythropoietin on SOFA score, Glasgow Coma Scale and mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a randomized-double-blind controlled trial

Background

Recent studies suggest that erythropoietin has an anti-inflammatory effect on the central nervous system. The authors aimed to investigate the effect of erythropoietin on Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and the mortality rate of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

Methods

Sixty-eight patients with available inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to the control or intervention groups. In the intervention group, erythropoietin (4000 units) was administrated on days 1, 3, and 5. In the control group, normal saline on the same days was used. The primary outcomes were the GCS and SOFA score changes during the intervention. The secondary outcomes were the ventilation period during the first 2 weeks and the 3-month mortality rate.

Results

Erythropoietin administration significantly affected SOFA score over time (P=0.008), but no significant effect on the GCS, and duration of ventilation between the two groups was observed. Finally, erythropoietin had no significant effect on the three-month mortality (23.5% vs. 38.2% in the erythropoietin and control group, respectively). However, the mortality rate in the intervention group was lower than in the control group.

Conclusion

Our finding showed that erythropoietin administration in TBI may improve SOFA score. Therefore, erythropoietin may have beneficial effects on early morbidity and clinical improvement in TBI patients.

Adaptive design trials in eating disorder research: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review sought to map the breadth of literature on the use of adaptive design trials in eating disorder research.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Scopus, PsycInfo, Emcare, Econlit, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention targeting any type of eating disorder (including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder, and other specified feeding or eating disorders), and employed the use of an adaptive design trial to evaluate the intervention. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion, and data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second.

RESULTS

We identified five adaptive design trials targeting anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder conducted in the USA and Australia. All employed adaptive treatment arm switching based on early response to treatment and identified a priori stopping rules. None of the studies included value of information analysis to guide adaptive design decisions and none included lived experience perspectives.

DISCUSSION

The limited use of adaptive designs in eating disorder trials represents a missed opportunity to improve enrolment targets, attrition rates, treatment outcomes and trial efficiency. We outline the range of adaptive methodologies, how they could be applied to eating disorder research, and the specific operational and statistical considerations relevant to adaptive design trials.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

Adaptive design trials are increasingly employed as flexible, efficient alternatives to fixed trial designs, but they are not often used in eating disorder research. This first scoping review identified five adaptive design trials targeting anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder that employed treatment arm switching adaptive methodology. We make recommendations on the use of adaptive design trials for future eating disorder trials.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements

OBJECTIVES

To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines.

METHODS

We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees.

RESULTS

We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity.

CONCLUSION

The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

Optimal futility stopping boundaries for binary endpoints

BACKGROUND

Group sequential designs incorporating the option to stop for futility at the time point of an interim analysis can save time and resources. Thereby, the choice of the futility boundary importantly impacts the design's resulting performance characteristics, including the power and probability to correctly or wrongly stop for futility. Several authors contributed to the topic of selecting good futility boundaries. For binary endpoints, Simon's designs (Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989) are commonly used two-stage designs for single-arm phase II studies incorporating futility stopping. However, Simon's optimal design frequently yields an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility after the first stage, and in Simon's minimax design often a high proportion of the planned sample size is already evaluated at the interim analysis leaving only limited benefit in case of an early stop.

METHODS

This work focuses on the optimality criteria introduced by Schüler et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 17:119, 2017) and extends their approach to binary endpoints in single-arm phase II studies. An algorithm for deriving optimized futility boundaries is introduced, and the performance of study designs implementing this concept of optimal futility boundaries is compared to the common Simon's minimax and optimal designs, as well as modified versions of these designs by Kim et al. (Oncotarget 10:4255-61, 2019).

RESULTS

The introduced optimized futility boundaries aim to maximize the probability of correctly stopping for futility in case of small or opposite effects while also setting constraints on the time point of the interim analysis, the power loss, and the probability of stopping the study wrongly, i.e. stopping the study even though the treatment effect shows promise. Overall, the operating characteristics, such as maximum sample size and expected sample size, are comparable to those of the classical and modified Simon's designs and sometimes better. Unlike Simon's designs, which have binding stopping rules, the optimized futility boundaries proposed here are not adjusted to exhaust the full targeted nominal significance level and are thus still valid for non-binding applications.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of the futility boundary and the time point of the interim analysis have a major impact on the properties of the study design. Therefore, they should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The introduced method of selecting optimal futility boundaries provides a more flexible alternative to Simon's designs with non-binding stopping rules. The probability of wrongly stopping for futility is minimized and the optimized futility boundaries don't exhibit the unfavorable properties of an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility or a high proportion of the planned sample evaluated at the interim time point.

A systematic survey of adaptive trials shows substantial improvement in methods is needed

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials.

RESULTS

We included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n = 29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n = 71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n = 35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n = 26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n = 55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n = 19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n = 15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n = 7, 12.7%; ADFD: n = 8, 27.6%; ARD: n = 7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n = 7, 100.0%; ADFD: n = 7, 87.5%; ARD: n = 5, 71.4%). More than half (n = 76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n = 86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n = 22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future.

CONCLUSION

Substantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations from both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.

Effects of RBT-1 on preconditioning response biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or heart valve surgery: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

Background

RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833.

Findings

Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population).

Interpretation

RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned.

Funding

Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN71978064.

Optimizing clinical nutrition research: the role of adaptive and pragmatic trials

Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the preferred method for determining the effects of nutritional interventions on health outcomes. Nevertheless, obtaining a holistic understanding of intervention efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings is stymied by inherent constraints of efficacy RCTs. These limitations are further compounded by the complexity of nutritional interventions and the intricacies of the clinical context. Herein, we explore the advantages and limitations of alternative study designs (e.g., adaptive and pragmatic trials), which can be incorporated into RCTs to optimize the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in clinical nutrition research. Efficacy RCTs often lack external validity due to their fixed design and restrictive eligibility criteria, leading to efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Adaptive trials improve the evaluation of nutritional intervention efficacy through planned study modifications, such as recalculating sample sizes or discontinuing a study arm. Pragmatic trials are embedded within clinical practice or conducted in settings that resemble standard of care, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often rely on patient-oriented primary outcomes, acquire outcome data from electronic health records, and employ broader eligibility criteria. Consequently, adaptive and pragmatic trials facilitate the prompt implementation of evidence-based nutritional recommendations into clinical practice. Recognizing the limitations of efficacy RCTs and the potential advantages of alternative trial designs is essential for bridging efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Ultimately, this awareness will lead to a greater number of patients benefiting from evidence-based nutritional recommendations.

Transparent reporting of adaptive clinical trials using concurrently randomised cohorts

Adaptive clinical trials have designs that evolve over time because of changes to treatments or changes to the chance that participants will receive these treatments. These changes might introduce confounding that biases crude comparisons of the treatment arms and makes the results from standard reporting methods difficult to interpret for adaptive trials. To deal with this shortcoming, a reporting framework for adaptive trials was developed based on concurrently randomised cohort reporting. A concurrently randomised cohort is a subgroup of participants who all had the same treatments available and the same chance of receiving these treatments. The reporting of pre-randomisation characteristics and post-randomisation outcomes for each concurrently randomised cohort in the study is recommended. This approach provides a transparent and unbiased display of the degree of baseline balance and the randomised treatment comparisons for adaptive trials. The key concepts, terminology, and recommendations underlying concurrently randomised cohort reporting are presented, and its routine use in adaptive trial reporting is advocated.

The unblinding of statisticians in clinical trials: commentary on Iflaifel et al., Trials 2023

Recently, the Blinding of Trial Statisticians research team, Iflaifel and colleagues, have produced detailed guidance regarding the blinding or unblinding of statisticians in clinical trials, based on substantial mixed-methods work. I wish to comment on the research findings. In particular, I argue that open-label trials, non-drug trials, or non-inferiority trials should not be treated any differently from blinded superiority trials with regards to the risk of bias assessment. Prevention of bias should be the priority for definitive randomised controlled trials, regardless of the precise study design.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with adaptive and traditional group sequential designs - applications in cardiovascular clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trial design plays a key role in clinical trials. Traditional group sequential design has been used in cardiovascular clinical trials over decades as the trials can potentially be stopped early, therefore, it can reduce pre-planned sample size and trial resources. In contrast, trials with adoptive designs provide greater flexibility and are more efficient due to the ability to modify trial design according to the interim analysis results. In this systematic review, we aim to explore characteristics of adaptive and traditional group sequential trials in practice and to gain an understanding how these trial designs are currently being reported in cardiology.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched from January 1980 to June 2022. Randomised controlled phase 2/3 trials with either adaptive or traditional group sequential design in patients with cardiovascular disease were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present the collected data.

RESULTS

Of 456 articles found in the initial search, 56 were identified including 43 (76.8%) trials with traditional group sequential design and 13 (23.2%) with adaptive. Most trials were large, multicentre, led by the USA (50%) and Europe (28.6%), and were funded by companies (78.6%). For trials with group sequential design, frequency of interim analyses was determined mainly by the number of events (47%). 67% of the trials stopped early, in which 14 (32.6%) were due to efficacy, and 5 (11.6%) for futility. The commonly used stopping rule to terminate trials was O'Brien- Fleming-type alpha spending function (10 (23.3%)). For trials with adaptive designs, 54% of the trials stopped early, in which 4 (30.8%) were due to futility, and 2 (15.4%) for efficacy. Sample size re-estimation was commonly used (8 (61.5%)). In 69% of the trials, simulation including Bayesian approach was used to define the statistical stopping rules. The adaptive designs have been increasingly used (from 0 to 1999 to 38.6% after 2015 amongst adaptive trials). 25% of the trials reported "adaptive" in abstract or title of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of adaptive trials is increasingly popular in cardiovascular clinical trials. The reporting of adaptive design needs improving.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

BACKGROUND

Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE).

METHODS

The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar.

CONCLUSIONS

By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred.

Looking ahead in early-phase trial design to improve the drug development process: examples in oncology

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial design must consider the specific resource constraints and overall goals of the drug development process (DDP); for example, in designing a phase I trial to evaluate the safety of a drug and recommend a dose for a subsequent phase II trial. Here, we focus on design considerations that involve the sequence of clinical trials, from early phase I to late phase III, that constitute the DDP.

METHODS

We discuss how stylized simulation models of clinical trials in an oncology DDP can quantify important relationships between early-phase trial designs and their consequences for the remaining phases of development. Simulations for three illustrative settings are presented, using stylized models of the DDP that mimic trial designs and decisions, such as the potential discontinuation of the DDP.

RESULTS

We describe: (1) the relationship between a phase II single-arm trial sample size and the likelihood of a positive result in a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial; (2) the impact of a phase I dose-finding design on the likelihood that the DDP will produce evidence of a safe and effective therapy; and (3) the impact of a phase II enrichment trial design on the operating characteristics of a subsequent phase III confirmatory trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Stylized models of the DDP can support key decisions, such as the sample size, in the design of early-phase trials. Simulation models can be used to estimate performance metrics of the DDP under realistic scenarios; for example, the duration and the total number of patients enrolled. These estimates complement the evaluation of the operating characteristics of early-phase trial design, such as power or accuracy in selecting safe and effective dose levels.

Ropeginterferon versus Standard Therapy for Low-Risk Patients with Polycythemia Vera

BACKGROUND: Whether phlebotomy alone can adequately maintain target hematocrit in patients with low-risk polycythemia vera (PV) remains elusive. METHODS: In a phase 2 open-label randomized trial, we compared ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropeg; 100 μg every 2 weeks) with phlebotomy only regarding maintenance of a median hematocrit level (≤45%) over 12 months in the absence of progressive disease (primary end point). In follow-up, crossover to the alternative treatment group was allowed if the primary end point was not met. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients were enrolled (ropeg: n=64; standard group: n=63). The primary end point was met in 81% and 51% in the ropeg and standard groups, respectively. Responders continued the assigned treatment until month 24 and maintained response in 83% and 59%, respectively (P=0.02). Ropeg responders less frequently experienced moderate/severe symptoms (33% vs. 67% in the standard group) and palpable splenomegaly (14% vs. 37%) and showed normalization of ferritin levels and blood counts. Nonresponders at 12 months crossed over to the standard (n=9) or ropeg (n=23) group; in patients switched to ropeg only, 7 of 23 met the response criteria in 12 months, and phlebotomy need was high (4.7 per patient per year). Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in seven patients treated with ropeg. CONCLUSIONS: In this 24-month trial, ropeg was superior to phlebotomy alone in maintaining hematocrit on target. No dose-limiting side effects or toxicities were noted; 9.2% of patients on ropeg and no patients on standard treatment developed neutropenia. (Funded by AOP Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03003325.)

Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%.

CONCLUSION

We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Reporting quality was suboptimal in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptive designs

OBJECTIVE

The study was conducted to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use an adaptive design (AD) based on the 2020 AD Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 extension (ACE) guidelines and identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until November 1, 2022. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to investigate potential predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 109 RCTs were included in our study. The mean compliance rate for the ACE checklist items was 69.75% ± 16.02. Key methodological items including allocation concealment and its implementations were poorly reported. There was also suboptimal reporting of checklist items related to the conduct of interim analyzes. Multivariable regression analysis showed better reporting quality with trial registration, nonindustry affiliation (first author), a sample size of >100, general medical journal type, publication date (≥2020), funding, and disclosure of the number of interim analyzes.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that RCTs with AD had suboptimal reporting of 2020 ACE checklist items, particularly AD-specific items. Following the development of ACE guidelines, stricter adherence to the ACE guideline is necessary to improve their reporting quality. Pre-ACE and post-ACE adherence comparisons can be conducted in the future.

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value," and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two-part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias-reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature.

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard study design used to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The reporting quality of RCTs is of fundamental importance for readers to appropriately analyse and understand the design and results of studies which are often labelled as practice changing papers. The aim of this article is to assess the reporting standards of a representative sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2019 and 2020 in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals. A systematic review of the electronic database Medline was conducted. Eligible RCTs included those published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal between January 1, 2019, and June 9, 2020. The study protocol was registered on medRxiv ( https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.06.20147074 ). Of a total eligible sample of 497 studies, 50 full-text RCTs were reviewed against the CONSORT 2010 statement and relevant extensions where necessary. The mean adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 90% (SD 9%). There were specific items on the CONSORT checklist which had recurring suboptimal adherence, including in title (item 1a, 70% adherence), randomisation (items 9 and 10, 56% and 30% adherence) and outcomes and estimation (item 17b, 62% adherence). Amongst a sample of RCTs published in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals, there was good overall adherence to the CONSORT 2010 statement. However there remains significant room for improvement in areas such as description of allocation concealment and implementation of randomisation.

Platform trials for anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a narrative review

Large randomised trials provide the most reliable evidence of effectiveness of new treatments in clinical practice. However, the time and resources required to complete such trials can be daunting. An overarching clinical trial platform focused on a single condition or type of surgery, aiming to compare several treatments, with an option to stop any or add in new treatment options, can provide greater efficiency. This has the potential to accelerate knowledge acquisition and identify effective, ineffective, or harmful treatments faster. The master protocol of the platform defines the study population(s) and standardised procedures. Ineffective or harmful treatments can be discarded or study drug dose modified during the life cycle of the trial. Other adaptive elements that can be modified include eligibility criteria, required sample size for any comparison(s), randomisation assignment ratio, and the addition of other promising treatment options. There are excellent opportunities for anaesthetists to establish platform trials in perioperative medicine. Platform trials are highly efficient, with the potential to provide quicker answers to important clinical questions that lead to improved patient care.

Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials

Many drugs used in paediatric medicine are off-label. There is a rising call for the use of adaptive clinical trial designs (ADs) in responding to the need for safe and effective drugs given their potential to offer efficiency and cost-effective benefits compared with traditional clinical trials. ADs have a strong appeal in paediatric clinical trials given the small number of available participants, limited understanding of age-related variability and the desire to limit exposure to futile or unsafe interventions. Although the ethical value of adaptive trials has increasingly come under scrutiny, there is a paucity of literature on the ethical dilemmas that may be associated with paediatric adaptive designs (PADs). This paper highlights some of these ethical concerns around safety, scientific/social value and caregiver/guardian comprehension of the trial design. Against this background, the paper develops a non-static conceptual lens for understanding PADs. It shows that ADs are epistemically open and reduce some of the knowledge-associated uncertainties inherent in clinical trials as well as fast-track the time to draw conclusions about the value of evaluated drugs/treatments. On this note, the authors argue that PADs are ethically justifiable given they (1) have multiple layers of safety, exposing enrolled children to lesser potential risks, (2) create social/scientific value generally and for paediatric populations in particular, (3) specifically foster the flourishing of paediatric populations and (4) can significantly improve paediatric trial efficiency when properly designed and implemented. However, because PADs are relatively new and their regulatory, ethical and logistical characteristics are yet to be clarified in some jurisdictions, the cooperation of various public and private stakeholders is required to ensure that the interests of children, their caregivers and parents/guardians are best served while exposing paediatric research subjects to the most minimal of risks when they are enrolled in paediatric trials that use ADs.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units

BACKGROUND

Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations.

METHODS

Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols.

RESULTS

We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.

Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: a statistical analysis plan for NOTACS, a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The NOTACS trial will assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen therapy (SOT) on the outcomes of patients after cardiac surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

NOTACS is an adaptive, international, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with a pre-planned interim sample size re-estimation (SSR). A minimum of 850 patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either HFNT or SOT. The primary outcome is days alive and at home in the first 90 days after the planned surgery (DAH90), with a number of secondary analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses also planned. The interim SSR will take place after a minimum of 300 patients have been followed up for 90 days and will allow for the sample size to increase up to a maximum of 1152 patients.

RESULTS

This manuscript provides detailed descriptions of the design of the NOTACS trial, and the analyses to be undertaken at the interim and final analyses. The main purpose of the interim analysis is to assess safety and to perform a sample size re-estimation. The main purpose of the final analysis is to examine the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HFNT compared to SOT on the outcomes of patients after cardiac surgery.

DISCUSSION

This manuscript outlines the key features of the NOTACS statistical analysis plan and was submitted to the journal before the interim analysis in order to preserve scientific integrity under an adaptive design framework. The NOTACS SAP closely follows published guidelines for the content of SAPs in clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN14092678 . Registered on 13 May 2020.

Adaptive interventions to optimise the mobile phone-based smoking cessation support: study protocol for a sequential, multiple assignment, randomised trial (SMART)

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) is promising in developing personalised smoking cessation interventions. By using an adaptive trial design, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of personalised mHealth intervention in increasing smoking cessation.

METHODS

This study is a two-arm, parallel, accessor-blinded Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomised Trial (SMART) that randomises 1200 daily cigarette smokers from 70 community sites at two timepoints. In the first phase, participants receive brief cessation advice plus referral assistance to smoking cessation services and are randomly allocated to receive personalised instant messaging (PIM) or regular instant messaging (RIM). In the second phase, PIM participants who are non-responders (i.e. still smoking at 1 month) are randomised to receive either optional combined interventions (multi-media messages, nicotine replacement therapy sampling, financial incentive for active referral, phone counselling, and family/peer support group chat) or continued-PIM. Non-responders in the RIM group are randomised to receive PIM or continued-RIM. Participants who self-report quitting smoking for 7 days or longer at 1 month (responders) in both groups continue to receive the intervention assigned in phase 1. The primary outcomes are biochemical abstinence validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (< 4 ppm) and salivary cotinine (< 10 ng/ml) at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Intention-to-treat analysis will be adopted.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study using a SMART design to evaluate the effect of adaptive mHealth intervention on abstinence in community-recruited daily smokers. If found effective, the proposed intervention will inform the development of adaptive smoking cessation treatment and benefits smokers non-responding to low-intensity mHealth support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03992742 . Registered on 20 June 2019.

Analyzing the Impact of Mobile App Engagement on Mental Health Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of the Unwinding Anxiety Program

BACKGROUND

App-based interventions provide a promising avenue for mitigating the burden on mental health services by complimenting therapist-led treatments for anxiety. However, it remains unclear how specific systems' use of app features may be associated with changes in mental health outcomes (eg, anxiety and worry).

OBJECTIVE

This study was a secondary analysis of engagement data from a stage 1 randomized controlled trial testing the impact of the Unwinding Anxiety mobile app among adults with generalized anxiety disorder. The aims of this study were 2-fold: to investigate whether higher microengagement with the primary intervention feature (ie, educational modules) is associated with positive changes in mental health outcomes at 2 months (ie, anxiety, worry, interoceptive awareness, and emotional reactivity) and to investigate whether the use of adjunctive app features is also associated with changes in mental health outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed the intervention group during the stage 1 trial of the Unwinding Anxiety mobile app. The total use of specific mobile app features and the use specific to each feature were calculated. We used multivariate linear models with a priori significance of α=.05 to investigate the impact of cumulative app use on anxiety, worry, interoceptive awareness, and emotional regulation at 2 months, controlling for baseline scores, age, and education level in all models. Significant relationships between system use metrics and baseline participant characteristics were assessed for differences in use groupings using between-group testing (ie, 2-tailed t tests for continuous data and chi-square analyses for categorical data).

RESULTS

The sample was primarily female (25/27, 93%), and the average age was 42.9 (SD 15.6) years. Educational module completion, the central intervention component, averaged 20.2 (SD 11.4) modules out of 32 for the total sample. Multivariate models revealed that completing >75% of the program was associated with an average 22.6-point increase in interoceptive awareness (b=22.6; SE 8.32; P=.01; 95% CI 5.3-39.8) and an 11.6-point decrease in worry (b=-11.6; SE 4.12; P=.01; 95% CI -20.2 to -3.1). In addition, a single log unit change in the total number of meditations was associated with a 0.62-point reduction in the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale scores (b=0.62; SE 0.27; P=.005; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.6), whereas a single log unit use of the stress meter was associated with an average of a 0.5-point increase in emotional regulation scores (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; b=0.5; SE 0.21; P=.03; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a clearer understanding of the impact of engagement with app features on broader engagement with the health outcomes of interest. This study highlights the importance of comprehensive investigations of engagement during the development of evidence-based mobile apps.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

Conditional power in vaccine trials with seasonal variations

Conditional power (CP) is widely used in clinical trial monitoring to quantify the evidence for futility stopping or sample size adaptation during the trial. When planning an interim analysis in vaccine trials for seasonal infectious diseases, CPs calculated under the hypothesized or currently estimated effect sizes may not truly reflect future data due to seasonal variations in disease incidence and/or vaccine efficacy (VE). Relying on these estimates alone could lead to erroneous decisions. Therefore, we carried out simulation studies to investigate the use of seven different choices for the drift parameter in computing CP or predictive power (PP) in end-of-season interim analysis. Our simulations showed that, when used to inform futility stopping, CP under the hypothesized effect and a weighted PP under a normal prior distribution appear to outperform others in terms of the overall type II error rate. All CPs and PPs considered in this study resulted in comparable powers and expected sample sizes when used to inform sample size adaptation. The performance of either CP or PP largely depends on the extent to which the chosen drift parameter or the prior distribution of the drift parameter matches the remainder of the trial. Weighted CP/PP tends to be less sensitive to settings where observed data and emerging data in future seasons differ substantially as they incorporate both current estimate and future variations. Therefore, weighted strategies deserve further exploration and perhaps increased usage in guiding trial operations because they are more robust to inaccuracies in prediction. In summary, for vaccine trials with seasonal variations, a decision on trial operations should be guided by a careful consideration of plausible CPs and PPs calculated under reasonable assumptions leveraging the data, prior hypotheses, and new evidence on clinical relevance.

Adaptive Designs: Benefits and Cautions for Neurosurgery Trials

BACKGROUND

It is well accepted that randomized controlled trials provide the greatest quality of evidence about effectiveness and safety of new interventions. In neurosurgery, randomized controlled trials face challenges, with their use remaining relatively low compared with other clinical areas. Adaptive designs have emerged as a method for improving the efficiency and patient benefit of trials. They allow modifications to the trial design to be made as patient outcome data are collected. The benefit they provide is highly variable, predominantly governed by the time taken to observe the primary endpoint compared with the planned recruitment rate. They also face challenges in design, conduct, and reporting.

METHODS

We provide an overview of the benefits and challenges of adaptive designs, with a focus on neurosurgery applications. To investigate how often an adaptive design may be advantageous in neurosurgery, we extracted data on recruitment rates and endpoint lengths for ongoing neurosurgery trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESULTS

We found that a majority of neurosurgery trials had a relatively short endpoint length compared with the planned recruitment period and therefore may benefit from an adaptive trial. However, we did not identify any ongoing ClinicalTrials.gov registered neurosurgery trials that mentioned using an adaptive design.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive designs may provide benefits to neurosurgery trials and should be considered for use more widely. Use of some types of adaptive design, such as multiarm multistage, may further increase the number of interventions that can be tested with limited patient and financial resources.

Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial

Background

Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

Methods

The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo.

Findings

The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88–1.11) or other secondary outcomes.

Interpretation

In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.

Funding

The trial was supported by FastGrants and The Rainwater Foundation.

How to Use and Interpret the Results of a Platform Trial: Users' Guide to the Medical Literature

Platform trials are a type of randomized clinical trial that allow simultaneous comparison of multiple intervention groups against a single control group that serves as a common control based on a prespecified interim analysis plan. The platform trial design enables introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated to evaluate multiple interventions in an ongoing manner using a single overarching protocol called a master (or core) protocol. When multiple treatment candidates are available, rapid scientific therapeutic discoveries may be made. Platform trials have important potential advantages in creating an efficient trial infrastructure that can help address critical clinical questions as the evidence evolves. Platform trials have recently been used in investigations of evolving therapies for patients with COVID-19. The purpose of this Users' Guide to the Medical Literature is to describe fundamental concepts of platform trials and master protocols and review issues in the conduct and interpretation of these studies. This Users' Guide is intended to help clinicians and readers understand articles reporting on interventions evaluated using platform trial designs.

Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia can have increased inflammation and elevated cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-6, which might be deleterious. Thus, sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, might improve the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We did a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised, adaptive, phase 2/3 clinical trial, nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, to test a superiority hypothesis. Patients 18 years or older hospitalised with COVID-19 in six French centres, requiring at least 3L/min of oxygen but without ventilation assistance and a WHO Clinical Progression Scale [CPS] score of 5 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, according to a randomisation list stratified on centre and with blocks randomly selected among 2 and 4, to receive usual care plus 400 mg of sarilumab intravenously on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (sarilumab group) or usual care alone (usual care group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with WHO-CPS scores greater than 5 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without invasive or non-invasive ventilation at day 14. This completed trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324073.

Findings

165 patients were recruited from March 27 to April 6, 2020, and 148 patients were randomised (68 patients to the sarilumab group and 80 to the usual care group) and followed up for 90 days. Median age was 61·7 years [IQR 53·0–71·1] in the sarilumab group and 62·8 years [56·0–71·7] in the usual care group. In the sarilumab group 49 (72%) of 68 were men and in the usual care group 59 (78%) of 76 were men. Four patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. 18 (26%) of 68 patients in the sarilumab group had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 versus 20 (26%) of 76 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference 0·2%; 90% credible interval [CrI] −11·7 to 12·2), with a posterior probability of absolute risk difference greater than 0 of 48·9%. At day 14, 25 (37%) patients in the sarilumab and 26 (34%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, (median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1·10; 90% CrI 0·69–1·74) with a posterior probability HR greater than 1 of 37·4%. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (40%) patients in the sarilumab group and 28 (37%) patients in the usual care group (p=0·73).

Interpretation

Sarilumab treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of sarilumab on long-term survival.

Funding

Assistance publique—Hôpitaux de Paris

Estimands-a Basic Element for Clinical Trials. Part 29 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are of central importance for the evaluation and comparison of treatments. The transparency and intelligibility of the treatment effect under investigation is an essential matter for physicians, patients, and health-care authorities. The estimand framework has been introduced because many trials are deficient in this respect.

METHODS

Introduction, definition, and application of the estimand framework on the basis of an example and a selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

The estimand framework provides a systematic approach to the definition of the treatment effect under investigation in a clinical trial. An estimand consists of five attributes: treatment, population, variable, population-level summary, and handling of intercurrent events. Each of these attributes is defined in an interdisciplinary discussion during the trial planning phase, based on the clinical question being asked. Special attention is given to the handling of intercurrent events (ICEs): these are events-e.g., discontinuation or modification of treatment or the use of emergency medication-that can occur once the treatment has begun and might affect the possibility of observing the endpoints or their interpretability. There are various strategies for the handling of ICEs; these can, for example, also reflect the existing intentionto- treat (ITT) principle. Per-protocol analyses, in contrast, are prone to bias and cannot be represented in a sensible manner by an estimand, although they may be performed as a supplementary analysis. The discussion of potential intercurrent events and how they should appropriately be handled in view of the aim of the trial must already take place in the planning phase.

CONCLUSION

Use of the estimand framework should make it easier for both physicians and patients to understand what trials reveal about the efficacy of treatment, and to compare the results of different trials.

Sample size calculations in high-profile surgical trials that use patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review

Sample size calculations from high-profile surgical RCTs that used a patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome were reviewed systematically against Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) standards, with a focus on target differences. In this sample of trials, there was frequent use of suboptimal methods to determine the target difference, and sample size calculations were generally not reported to DELTA2 standards. This risks over-recruitment and/or erroneous trial conclusions, which clinicians should be aware of when interpreting published trials.

Randomised clinical trials in critical care: past, present and future

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for providing unbiased evidence of intervention effects. Here, we provide an overview of the history of RCTs and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure. We discuss recent developments in critical care RCTs and novel methods that may provide solutions to some of these challenges, including a research programme approach (consecutive, complementary studies of multiple types rather than individual, independent studies), and novel design and analysis methods. These include standardization of trial protocols; alternative outcome choices and use of core outcome sets; increased acceptance of uncertainty, probabilistic interpretations and use of Bayesian statistics; novel approaches to assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects; adaptation and platform trials; and increased integration between clinical trials and clinical practice. We outline the advantages and discuss the potential methodological and practical disadvantages with these approaches. With this review, we aim to inform clinicians and researchers about conventional and novel RCTs, including the rationale for choosing one or the other methodological approach based on a thorough discussion of pros and cons. Importantly, the most central feature remains the randomisation, which provides unparalleled restriction of confounding compared to non-randomised designs by reducing confounding to chance.

Pylorus resection versus pylorus preservation in pancreatoduodenectomy (PyloResPres): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a German multicentre, single-blind, surgical, registry-based randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for various benign and malignant tumours of the pancreatic head or the periampullary region. For reconstruction of the gastrointestinal passage, two stomach-preserving PD variants exist: pylorus preservation PD (ppPD) or pylorus resection PD (prPD) with preservation of the stomach. In pancreatic surgery, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a serious complication after PD with an incidence varying between 4.5% and 45%, potentially delaying hospital discharge or further treatment, for example, adjuvant chemotherapy. Evidence is lacking to assess, which variant of PD entails fewer postoperative DGE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol of a large-scale, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, registry-based randomised controlled trial (rRCT) using a two-stage group-sequential design is presented. This patient-blind rRCT aims to demonstrate the superiority of prPD over ppPD with respect to the overall incidence of DGE within 30 days after index surgery in a German real-world setting. A total of 984 adults undergoing elective PD for any indication will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited at about 30 hospitals being members of the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry established by the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. The postoperative follow-up for each patient will be 30 days. The primary analysis will follow an intention-to-treat approach and applies a binary logistic random intercepts model. Secondary perioperative outcomes include overall severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), blood loss, 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative hospital stay and operation time. Complication rates and adverse events will be closely monitored.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich (reference number 19-221). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (http://www.dgav.de/studoq/pylorespres/).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS-ID: DRKS00018842.

Implementation of platform trials in the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review

Motivation

Platform designs - master protocols that allow for new treatment arms to be added over time - have gained considerable attention in recent years. Between 2001 and 2019, 16 platform trials were initiated globally. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have provided a new motivation for these designs. We conducted a rapid review to quantify and describe platform trials used in COVID-19.

Methods

We cross-referenced PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cytel COVID-19 Clinical Trials Tracker to identify platform trials, defined by their stated ability to add future arms.

Results

We identified 58 COVID-19 platform trials globally registered between January 2020 and May 2021. According to trial registries, 16 trials have added new therapies (median 3, IQR 4) and 11 have dropped arms (median 3, IQR 2.5). About 50% of trials publicly share their protocol, and 31 trials (53%) intend to share trial data. Forty-nine trials (84%) explicitly report adaptive features, and 21 trials (36%) state Bayesian methods.

Conclusions

During the pandemic, there has been a surge in the number of platform trials compared to historical use. While transparency in statistical methods and clarity of data sharing policies needs improvement, platform trials appear particularly well-suited for rapid evidence generation. Trials secured funding quickly and many succeeded in adding new therapies in a short time period, thus demonstrating the potential for these trial designs to be implemented beyond the pandemic. The evidence gathered here may provide ample insight to further inform operational, statistical, and regulatory aspects of future platform trial conduct.