Stopping guidelines for an effectiveness trial: what should the protocol specify?

Need for greater post-trial support for clinical trial participants assessing high-risk, irreversible treatments

There are increasing numbers of clinical trials assessing high-risk, irreversible treatments. Trial participants should only expect knowledge gain to society, no personal therapeutic benefit. However, participation may lead to long-term harms and prevent future therapeutic options. While some discussion has occurred around post-trial access to treatments for participants who received therapeutic benefit, there are no post-trial support requirements for those suffering long-term consequences from trial participation. Participants may be left with significant medical, psychological, social, technical or financial needs. All trials will end at some point, regardless of their success. Subsequently, they should be designed to take into account the post-trial period including the impact on the ongoing health of a participant and their post-trial needs.

The Requirements of Managing Phase I Clinical Trials Risks: The British and Italian Case Studies

Phase I clinical trials represent a critical point in drug development because the investigational medicinal product is being tested in humans for the first time. For this reason, it is essential to evaluate and identify the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) and the safety of the new compound. To mitigate the possible risks associated with drug administration and treatment, the European Competent Authority issued various guidelines to provide provisions and harmonize risk management processes. In the UK and Italy, particular attention should be paid to the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) phase I accreditation scheme and the specific rules set by the Italian Drug Authority through the AIFA Determination no. 809/2015. Both reference documents are based on the concept of quality risk management while conducting phase I clinical studies. Moreover, the AIFA determination outlines specific requirements for those sites that want to conduct non-profit phase I clinical trials. Indeed, the document reports peculiar activities to the "Clinical Trial Quality Team", which is a team that should support the clinical site researchers in designing, starting, performing, and closing non-profit phase I studies. In this paper, we provide a general overview of the main European guidelines concerning the management of risks during phase I trials, focusing on the main peculiarities of the schemes and rules set by the MHRA and AIFA.

Clinical and methodological implications for research elements in systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment were often unstructured and under-reported: a metaresearch study

OBJECTIVES

Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) have been published in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic and clinical trials were designed rapidly highlighting the importance of informative implications for research (IfRs) sections in SRs. IfR is one item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist and the Cochrane Handbook suggests considering population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) domains when developing IfR. We aimed (1) to assess whether SRs on COVID-19 treatments included any IfR statements and, for SRs with an IfR statement, (2) to examine which elements informed the IfR statement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a metaresearch study based on SRs on COVID-19 treatment identified in the Living OVerview of the Evidence COVID-19 database in May 2021 as part of another research project (CRD42021240423). We defined an IfR statement as at least one sentence that contained at least one bit of information that could be informative for planning future research. We extracted any IfR statements anywhere in the SRs on predefined IfR variables, in particular PICO elements, study design, and concepts underlying GRADE domains. Three authors extracted data independently after piloting the data extraction form. We resolved discrepancies in weekly discussions to ensure a high-quality data extraction.

RESULTS

We included 326 SRs, of which 284 SRs (87.1%) stated IfR. Of these 284 SRs, 201 (70.8%) reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and 66 (23.2%) using GRADE. IfR statements (n = 284) addressing PICO were unstructured and commonly reported 'population' (n = 195, 68.7%), 'intervention' (n = 242, 85.2%), and 'outcome' (n = 127, 44.7%) but not 'control' (n = 29, 10.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were infrequently reported in IfR statements of SRs (n = 284): 'risk of bias' (n = 14, 4.9%), 'imprecision' (n = 8, 2.8%), 'inconsistency' (n = 7, 2.5%), 'publication bias' (n = 3, 1.1%), and 'indirectness' (n = 1, 0.4%). Additional IfR elements mentioned in IfR were 'better reporting' of future studies (n = 17, 6.0%) and 'standardization of procedures in clinical trials' (n = 12, 4.2%).

CONCLUSION

Almost 90% of SRs on COVID-19 treatments reported IfR. IfR statements addressing PICO were unstructured across SRs and concepts underlying GRADE were rarely reported to inform IfR. Further work is needed to assess generalizability beyond COVID-19 and to define more precisely which IfR elements should be considered, and how they should be reported in SRs of interventions. Until then, considering PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE to derive IfR seems to be a sensible starting point.

Standard vs. targeted oxygen therapy prehospitally for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (STOP-COPD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A high concentration of inspired supplemental oxygen may possibly cause hypercapnia and acidosis and increase mortality in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Even so, patients with AECOPD are being treated with high oxygen flow rates when receiving inhalation drugs in the prehospital setting. A cluster-randomised controlled trial found that reduced oxygen delivery by titrated treatment reduced mortality-a result supported by observational studies-but the results have never been reproduced. In the STOP-COPD trial, we investigate the effect of titrated oxygen delivery compared with usual care consisting of high flow oxygen delivery in patients with AECOPD in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, patients will be blinded to allocation. Patients with suspected AECOPD (n = 1888) attended by the emergency medical service (EMS) and aged > 40 years will be allocated randomly to either standard treatment or titrated oxygen, targeting a blood oxygen saturation of 88-92% during inhalation therapy. The trial will be conducted in the Central Denmark Region and include all ambulance units. The power to detect a 3% 30-day mortality risk difference is 80%. The trial is approved as an emergency trial. Hence, EMS providers will include patients without prior consent.

DISCUSSION

The results will provide evidence on whether titrated oxygen delivery outperforms standard high flow oxygen when used to nebulise inhaled bronchodilators in AECOPD treatment. The trial is designed to ensure unselected inclusion of patients with AECOPD needing nebulised bronchodilators-a group of patients that receives high oxygen fractions when treated in the prehospital setting where the only compressed gas is generally pure oxygen. Conducting this trial, we aim to improve treatment for people with AECOPD while reducing their 30-day mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Union Clinical Trials (EUCT) number: 2022-502003-30-00 (authorised 06/12/2022), ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05703919 (released 02/02/2023), Universal trial number: U1111-1278-2162.

Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Implications for research (IfR) sections are an important part of systematic reviews (SRs) to inform health care researchers and policy makers. PRISMA 2020 recommends reporting IfR, while Cochrane Reviews require a separate chapter on IfR. However, it is unclear to what extent SRs discuss IfR. We aimed i) to assess whether SRs include an IfR statement and ii) to evaluate which elements informed IfR statements.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-research study based on SRs of interventions in advanced cancer patients from a previous project (CRD42019134904). As suggested in the Cochrane Handbook, we assessed if the following predefined variables were referred to in IfR statements: patient, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and study design; concepts underlying Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias. Data were independently extracted by three reviewers after piloting the data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved in weekly in-depth discussions.

RESULTS

We included 261 SRs. The majority evaluated a pharmacological intervention (n = 244, 93.5%); twenty-nine were Cochrane Reviews (11.1%). Four out of five SRs included an IfR statement (n = 210, 80.5%). IfR statements commonly addressed 'intervention' (n = 121, 57.6%), 'patient ' (n = 113, 53.8%), and 'study design' (n = 107, 51.0%). The most frequent PICO and study design combinations were 'patient and intervention ' (n = 71, 33.8%) and 'patient, intervention and study design ' (n = 34, 16.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used for informing IfR recommendations: 'risk of bias ' (n = 2, 1.0%), and 'imprecision ' (n = 1, 0.5%), 'inconsistency ' (n = 1, 0.5%). Additional elements informing IfR were considerations on cost effectiveness (n = 9, 4.3%), reporting standards (n = 4, 1.9%), and individual patient data meta-analysis (n = 4, 1.9%).

CONCLUSION

Although about 80% of SRs included an IfR statement, the reporting of PICO elements varied across SRs. Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used to derive IfR. Further work needs to assess the generalizability beyond SRs in advanced cancer patients. We suggest that more specific guidance on which and how IfR elements to report in SRs of interventions needs to be developed. Utilizing PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE according to the Cochrane Handbook to state IfR seems to be a reasonable approach in the interim.

REGISTRATION

CRD42019134904.

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.

Personalized knowledge to reduce the risk of stroke (PERKS-International): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

RATIONALE

Theoretically, most strokes could be prevented through the management of modifiable risk factors. The Stroke Riskometer™ mobile phone application (hereon "The App") uses an individual's data to provide personalized information and advice to reduce their risk of stroke.

AIMS

To determine the effect of The App on a combined cardiovascular risk score (Life's Simple 7^®, LS7) of modifiable risk factors at 6 months post-randomization.

METHODS AND DESIGN

PERKS-International is a Phase III, multicentre, prospective, pragmatic, open-label, single-blinded endpoint, two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT). Inclusion criteria are as follows: age ⩾ 35 and ⩽75 years; ⩾2 LS7 risk factors; smartphone ownership; no history of stroke/myocardial infarction/cognitive impairment/terminal illness. The intervention group (IG) will be provided with The App, and the usual care group (UCG) is provided with generic online information about risk factors, but not be informed about The App. Face-to-face assessments will be conducted at baseline and 6 months, and online at 3 and 12 months. The RCT includes a process and economic evaluation.

STUDY OUTCOMES AND SAMPLE SIZE

The primary outcome is a difference in the mean change in LS7 (seven individual items: blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, body mass index (BMI), smoking, physical activity, and diet) from baseline to 6 months post-randomization with intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include: change in individual LS7 items, quality of life; stroke awareness, adverse events; health service use; and costs. Based on pilot data, 790 participants (395 IG, 395 UCG) will be required to provide 80% power (two-sided α = 0.05) to detect a mean difference in the LS7 of ⩾0.40 (SD 1.61) in IG compared to 0.01 (SD 1.44) in the UCG at 6 months post-randomization.

DISCUSSION

Stroke is largely preventable. This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of a mobile app to reduce stroke risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12621000211864.

Effect of standardized vs. local preoperative enteral feeding practice on the incidence of NEC in infants with duct dependent lesions: Protocol for a randomized control trial

Background

Infants with duct dependent heart lesions often require invasive procedures during the neonatal or early infancy period. These patients remain a challenge for pediatric cardiologists, neonatologists, and intensive care unit personnel. A relevant portion of these infant suffer from respiratory, cardiac failure and may develop NEC, which leads to inadequate growth and nutrition, causing delayed or complicated cardiac surgery.

Methods

This randomized control trial will recruit term infants diagnosed with a duct dependant lesion within the first 72 h of life. After obtaining written parental consent patients will be randomized to either the physician led enteral feeding or protocol-based feeding group. The intervention will continue up to 28 days of life or day of cardiosurgical treatment, whichever comes first. The primary outcomes include NEC and death related to NEC. Secondary outcomes include among others, number of interrupted feedings, growth velocity, daily protein and caloric intake, days to reach full enteral feeding and on mechanical ventilation.

Discussion

Our study will be the first randomized control trial to evaluate if standard (as in healthy newborns) initiation and advancement of enteral feeding is safe, improves short term outcomes and does not increase the risk of NEC. If the studied feeding regime proves to be intact, swift implementation and advancement of enteral nutrition may become a recommendation.

Trial registration

The study protocol has been approved by the local ethical board. It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05117164.

Aspirin to target arterial events in chronic kidney disease (ATTACK): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel group trial of low-dose aspirin vs. standard care for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with chronic kidney disease

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a very common long-term condition and powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Low-dose aspirin is of proven benefit in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke in people with pre-existing CVD. However, in people without CVD, the rates of MI and stroke are much lower, and the benefits of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD are largely balanced by an increased risk of bleeding.

People with CKD are at greatly increased risk of CVD and so the absolute benefits of aspirin are likely to be greater than in lower-risk groups, even if the relative benefits are the same. Post hoc evidence suggests the relative benefits may be greater in the CKD population but the risk of bleeding may also be higher. A definitive study of aspirin for primary prevention in this high-risk group, recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014, has never been conducted. The question has global significance given the rising burden of CKD worldwide and the low cost of aspirin.

Methods

ATTACK is a pragmatic multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint adjudication superiority trial of aspirin 75 mg daily vs. standard care for the primary prevention of CVD in 25,210 people aged 18 years and over with CKD recruited from UK Primary Care.

Participants aged 18 years and over with CKD (GFR category G1-G4) will be identified in Primary Care and followed up using routinely collected data and annual questionnaires for an average of 5 years. The primary outcome is the time to first major vascular event (composite of non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and cardiovascular death [excluding confirmed intracranial haemorrhage and other fatal cardiovascular haemorrhage]). Deaths from other causes (including fatal bleeding) will be treated as competing events. The study will continue until 1827 major vascular events have occurred. The principal safety outcome is major intracranial and extracranial bleeding; this is hypothesised to be increased in those randomised to take aspirin. The key consideration is then whether and to what extent the benefits of aspirin from the expected reduction in CVD events exceed the risks of major bleeding.

Discussion

This will be the first definitive trial of aspirin for primary CVD prevention in CKD patients. The research will be of great interest to clinicians, guideline groups and policy-makers, in the UK and globally, particularly given the high and rising prevalence of CKD that is driven by population ageing and epidemics of obesity and diabetes. The low cost of aspirin means that a positive result would be of relevance to low- and middle-income countries and the impact in the developed world less diluted by any inequalities in health care access.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN40920200. EudraCT: 2018-000644-26. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03796156

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06132-z.

Factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care: A systematic review

Background

Trials in health care are prospective human research studies designed to test the effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other treatment or prevention interventions. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results and a lack of transparency when reported, with limited clinical use.

Aim

This systematic literature review aimed to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials.

Methods

Information sources were retrieved from the following electronic citation databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and the grey literature repository: OpenGrey. 90 articles and guidelines were included in this review. A narrative, thematic synthesis identified the key factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care.

Findings and conclusion

We identified three analytical themes within which factors are grouped. These are: “what makes a statistician?“, “the need for dynamic statistical involvement and collaboration throughout a trial – it's not just about the numbers”, “and the “accountability of statisticians in ensuring the safety of trial participants and the integrity of trial data”. While important insights emerged about the qualifications, training, roles, and responsibilities of statisticians and their collaboration with other team members in a trial, further empirical research is warranted to elicit the perceptions of trial team members at the centre of statistics in trials.

Operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion compared with posterior foraminotomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervical radiculopathy is the most common disease in the cervical spine, affecting patients around 50–55 year of age. An operative treatment is common clinical praxis when non-operative treatment fails. The controversy is in the choice of operative treatment, conducting either anterior cervical decompression and fusion or posterior foraminotomy. The study objective is to evaluate short- and long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and posterior foraminotomy (PF)

Methods

A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial with 1:1 randomization, ACDF vs. PF including 110 patients. The primary aim is to evaluate if PF is non-inferior to ACDF using a non-inferiority design with ACDF as “active control.” The neck disability index (NDI) is the primary outcome measure, and duration of follow-up is 2 years.

Discussion

Due to absence of high level of evidence, the authors believe that a RCT will improve the evidence for using the different surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy and strengthen current surgical treatment recommendation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04177849. Registered on November 26, 2019

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background

Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19.

Methods

We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 μg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399.

Findings

From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned—73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0–50] vs 50% [15–71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference −0·12, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference −0·10, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events.

Interpretation

Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

Statistical fundamentals on cancer research for clinicians: Working with your statisticians

PURPOSE

To facilitate understanding statistical principles and methods for clinicians involved in cancer research.

METHODS

An overview of study design is provided on cancer research for both observational and clinical trials addressing study objectives and endpoints, superiority tests, non-inferiority and equivalence design, and sample size calculation. The principles of statistical models and tests including contemporary standard methods of analysis and evaluation are discussed. Finally, some statistical pitfalls frequently evident in clinical and translational studies in cancer are discussed.

RESULTS

We emphasize the practical aspects of study design (superiority vs non-inferiority vs equivalence study) and assumptions underpinning power calculations and sample size estimation. The differences between relative risk, odds ratio, and hazard ratio, understanding outcome endpoints, purposes of interim analysis, and statistical modeling to minimize confounding effects and bias are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Proper design and correctly constructed statistical models are critical for the success of cancer research studies. Most statistical inaccuracies can be minimized by following essential statistical principles and guidelines to improve quality in research studies.

Using a Mobile Health Intervention (DOT Selfie) With Transfer of Social Bundle Incentives to Increase Treatment Adherence in Tuberculosis Patients in Uganda: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The World Health Organization’s End TB Strategy envisions a world free of tuberculosis (TB)—free of deaths, disease, and suffering due to TB—by 2035. Nonadherence reduces cure rates, prolongs infectiousness, and contributes to the emergence of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). Moreover, MDR-TB is a growing, complex, and costly problem that presents a major obstacle to TB control. Directly observed therapy (DOT) for treatment adherence monitoring is the recommended standard; however, it is challenging to implement at scale because it is labor-intensive. Mobile health interventions can facilitate remote adherence monitoring and minimize the costs and inconveniences associated with standard DOT.

Objective

The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of using video directly observed therapy (VDOT) plus incentives to improve medication adherence in TB treatment versus usual-care DOT in an African context.

Methods

The DOT Selfie study is an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 2 parallel groups, in which 144 adult patients with TB aged 18-65 years will be randomly assigned to receive the usual-care DOT monitoring or VDOT as the intervention. The intervention will consist of a smartphone app, a weekly internet subscription, translated text message reminders, and incentives for those who adhere. The participant will use a smartphone to record and send time-stamped encrypted videos showing their daily medication ingestion. This video component will directly substitute the need for daily face-to-face meetings between the health provider and patients. We hypothesize that the VDOT intervention will be more effective because it allows patients to swallow their pills anywhere, anytime. Moreover, patients will receive mobile-phone–based “social bundle” incentives to motivate adherence to continued daily submission of videos to the health system. The health providers will log into a secured computer system to verify treatment adherence, document missed doses, investigate the reasons for missed doses, and follow prespecified protocol measures to re-establish medication adherence. The primary endpoint is the adherence level as measured by the fraction of expected doses observed over the treatment period. The main secondary outcome will be time-to-treatment completion in both groups.

Results

This study was funded in 2019. Enrollment began in July and is expected to be completed by November 2020. Data collection and follow-up are expected to be completed by June 2021. Results from the analyses based on the primary endpoint are expected to be submitted for publication by December 2021.

Conclusions

This random control trial will be among the first to evaluate the effectiveness of VDOT within an African setting. The results will provide robust scientific evidence on the implementation and adoption of mobile health (mHealth) tools, coupled with incentives to motivate TB medication adherence. If successful, VDOT will apply to other low-income settings and a range of chronic diseases with lifelong treatment, such as HIV/AIDs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04134689; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04134689

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/18029

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Randomized Controlled Trial

RATIONALE

Although case series describe benefits of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), this mode of ventilation has not been evaluated against the conventional low-tidal volume ventilation (LoTV) in children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of APRV and conventional LoTV on ventilator-free days in children with ARDS.

METHODS

This open-label, parallel-design randomized controlled trial was conducted in a 15-bed ICU. Children aged 1 month to 12 years satisfying the modified Berlin definition were included. We excluded children with air leaks, increased intracranial pressure, poor spontaneous breathing efforts, chronic lung disease, and beyond 24 hours of ARDS diagnosis or 72 hours of ventilation. Children were randomized using unstratified, variable-sized block technique. A priori interim analysis was planned at 50% enrollment. All enrolled children were followed up until 180 days after enrollment or death, whichever was earlier.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The trial was terminated after 50% enrollment (52 children) when analysis revealed higher mortality in the intervention arm. Ventilator-free days were statistically similar in both arms (P = 0.23). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 53.8% in APRV as compared with 26.9% among control subjects (risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-4.1; Fisher exact P = 0.089). The multivariate-adjusted risk ratio of death for APRV compared with LoTV was 2.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-4.12; P = 0.05). Higher mean airway pressures, greater spontaneous breathing, and early improvement in oxygenation were seen in the intervention arm.

CONCLUSIONS

APRV, as a primary ventilation strategy in children with ARDS, was associated with a trend toward higher mortality compared with the conventional LoTV. Limitations should be considered while interpreting these results. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02167698) and Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2014/06/004677).

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with bacterial infection: Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Early empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is recommended for patients with severe infections, including sepsis. β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations or carbapenems are often used to ensure coverage of likely pathogens. Piperacillin/tazobactam is proposed as a carbapenem-sparing agent to reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and superinfections. In the recently published MERINO trial, increased mortality from piperacillin/tazobactam was suggested in patients with bacteraemia with resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. Whether these findings also apply to empirical piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with other severe infections, including sepsis, is unknown. We aim to assess the benefits and harms of empirical and definitive piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with severe bacterial infections.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin. The primary outcome will be all-cause short-term mortality ≤ 90 days. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause long-term mortality > 90 days, adverse events, quality of life, use of life support, secondary infections, antibiotic resistance, and length of stay. We will conduct meta-analyses, including pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses for all assessed outcomes. The risk of random errors in the meta-analyses will be assessed by trial sequential analysis.

Practical risk management in early phase clinical trials

PURPOSE

Stopping rules are an essential part of risk management in early phase clinical trials. As well as being necessary for ensuring the safety of participants on clinical trials, they are also a requirement under the revision to the European Medicine Agency's first-in-human and early clinical trial guideline. The increasing complexity and size of modern trial designs (e.g. integrated trials) raise potential issues with risk management, which, if also too complex, presents challenges for both regulators and investigators to implement. Therefore, there is a clear need for a standard, template, or algorithm-based approach to risk management, in particular rules concerning adverse reactions. The purpose of this manuscript is to present template stopping (or adverse reaction, AR) rules that fulfil regulatory requirements and that can be adapted, taking into account trial design, nature of the investigational medicinal product, and anticipated effects.

METHODS

The template AR rules that use a systematic, objective and consistent process were developed, taking into account severity (using an objective grading system), seriousness, frequency and reversibility of ARs. These rules control decisions relating to individual trial participants, dosing regimens and dose escalation and/or progression to successive trial parts. For ease of use, the template rules consist of a single, one-page table.

RESULTS

The template AR rules have been successfully applied to many early phase adaptive integrated trials that received regulatory authorisation and were performed in the UK. This manuscript presents the template rule table and case studies of some trial-specific adaptations.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates how a systematic, objective and consistent approach to risk management of large integrated trials can be simple yet robust, facilitating effective decision making and trial progression whilst safeguarding participant safety.

Surgical vs. non-surgical management of displaced type-2 odontoid fractures in patients aged 75 years and older: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Displaced odontoid fractures in the elderly are treated non-surgically with a cervical collar or surgically with C1–C2 fusion. Due to the paucity of evidence, the treatment decision is often left to the discretion of the expert surgeon.

Methods

The Uppsala Study on Odontoid Fracture Treatment (USOFT) is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial evaluating the clinical superiority of the surgical treatment of type-2 odontoid fractures, with a 1-year Neck Disability Index (NDI) as the primary endpoint. Fifty consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years, with displaced type-2 odontoid fracture, are randomised to non-surgical or surgical treatment. Excluded are patients with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥ 4, dementia nursing care or anatomical cervical anomalies.

The minimal clinically important difference of the NDI is 3.5 points. A minimum of 16 patients are needed in each group to test the superiority with 80% power. By considering a 1-year mortality forecast of 29%, up to 25 participants are recruited in each group.

The non-surgical group is fitted with a rigid cervical collar for 12 weeks. The surgical group is treated with a posterior C1–C2 fusion. All participants are monitored with regard to the NDI, EuroQol score (EQ-5D), socio-demographics and computed tomography (CT) at the time of injury, at 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months. At 12 months, a dynamic radiographical investigation of upper cervical stability is performed.

The secondary endpoints are: EQ-5D score, activities of daily living (ADL), bony union, upper cervical stability and mortality.

Discussion

USOFT is the first randomised controlled trial comparing non-surgical and surgical management of type-2 odontoid fractures in the elderly. Using the NDI and EQ-5D as endpoints, future value-based decisions may consider quality-adjusted life years gained. Major limitations are (1) the allocation bias of the open-label study design, (2) that only higher training levels of all core specialties of spine surgery are included in the surgical treatment arm and (3) that only one type of surgical stabilisation is investigated (posterior C1–C2 fusion), while other methods are not included in this study.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02789774. Registered retrospectively on 25 August 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2690-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The PREDIMED trial, Mediterranean diet and health outcomes: How strong is the evidence?

AIMS

To address potential controversies on the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) after PREDIMED, a randomized trial of MedDiet for primary cardiovascular prevention. We have focused on: a) the PREDIMED study design, b) analysis of PREDIMED data and c) interpretation of its results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Regarding the design of the trial, its early termination and between-group differences in the intensity of the intervention are potential causes of concern. The planned duration was 6 years but the trial was prematurely stopped when an interim analysis at 4.8-year provided sufficient evidence of benefit for the two MedDiets. In the MedDiet groups supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or mixed-nuts, the primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was reduced by 30% and 28% respectively, as compared with the control group. Final results did not change after taking into account the different intensity of educational efforts during the trial. Other potential doubts related to data analysis (e.g., intention to treat versus a per-protocol approach, and consequences of dropouts) should not be causes of concern. Finally, we addressed alternative interpretations of the effect on all-cause mortality. The protocol-defined primary endpoint was a composite cardiovascular endpoint, not all-cause mortality. To analyze total mortality, we would have needed a much larger sample size and longer follow-up. Therefore, the PREDIMED results cannot be used to draw firm conclusions on MedDiets and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREDIMED study was designed to overcome three major problems of previous nutritional research: a) residual confounding, addressed by using a randomized design; b) single-nutrient approaches, by randomizing an overall dietary pattern; and c) the limitations of assessing only intermediate risk markers, by using hard clinical end-points.

Randomized, Multicenter Trial of ARTSS-2 (Argatroban With Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Stroke)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We conducted a randomized exploratory study to assess safety and the probability of a favorable outcome with adjunctive argatroban, a direct thrombin-inhibitor, administered to recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (r-tPA)-treated ischemic stroke patients.

METHODS

Patients treated with standard-dose r-tPA, not receiving endovascular therapy, were randomized to receive no argatroban or argatroban (100 μg/kg bolus) followed by infusion of either 1 (low dose) or 3 μg/kg per minute (high dose) for 48 hours. Safety was incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Probability of clinical benefit (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 at 90 days) was estimated using a conservative Bayesian Poisson model (neutral prior probability centered at relative risk, 1.0 and 95% prior intervals, 0.33-3.0).

RESULTS

Ninety patients were randomized: 29 to r-tPA alone, 30 to r-tPA+low-dose argatroban, and 31 to r-tPA+high-dose argatroban. Rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were similar among control, low-dose, and high-dose arms: 3/29 (10%), 4/30 (13%), and 2/31 (7%), respectively. At 90 days, 6 (21%) r-tPA alone, 9 (30%) low-dose, and 10 (32%) high-dose patients were with modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 1. The relative risks (95% credible interval) for modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 1 with low, high, and either low or high dose argatroban were 1.17 (0.57-2.37), 1.27 (0.63-2.53), and 1.34 (0.68-2.76), respectively. The probability that adjunctive argatroban was superior to r-tPA alone was 67%, 74%, and 79% for low, high, and low or high dose, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with r-tPA, adjunctive argatroban was not associated with increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and provides evidence that a definitive effectiveness trial is indicated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01464788.

Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to critical appraisal of animal drug trials in epilepsy

Preclinical studies have produced numerous drugs with antiseizure properties that currently are the standard of care. One third of the human population with epilepsy still continues to have seizures despite the ongoing discoveries. The recognized clinical gaps of care that need to be addressed are the identification of antiepileptogenic and disease‐modifying treatments, and treatments for refractory seizures or for seizures and epilepsies with limited or unsatisfactory treatments, such as early life epileptic encephalopathies. In this invited review, we provide a historical summary of the international efforts to reevaluate the strategies adopted in preclinical epilepsy therapy discovery studies. We discuss issues that may affect the quality, interpretation, and validation of preclinical studies and their translation to successful therapies for humans affected with epilepsy. These include the selection of animal models and the study design; research practices that affect rigor (such as appropriate use of statistics and reporting of study methods and results, their validation across models, labs, and preclinical‐clinical studies); the need to harmonize research methods and outcome assessment; and the importance of improving translation to clinically appropriate situations. The epilepsy research community is incrementally adopting collaborative research, including consortia or multicenter studies to meet these needs. Improving the infrastructure that can support these efforts will be instrumental in future success.

Advantages of Bayesian monitoring methods in deciding whether and when to stop a clinical trial: an example of a neonatal cooling trial

BACKGROUND

Decisions to stop randomized trials are often based on traditional P value thresholds and are often unconvincing to clinicians. To familiarize clinical investigators with the application and advantages of Bayesian monitoring methods, we illustrate the steps of Bayesian interim analysis using a recent major trial that was stopped based on frequentist analysis of safety and futility.

METHODS

We conducted Bayesian reanalysis of a factorial trial in newborn infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy that was designed to investigate whether outcomes would be improved by deeper (32 °C) or longer cooling (120 h), as compared with those achieved by standard whole body cooling (33.5 °C for 72 h). Using prior trial data, we developed neutral and enthusiastic prior probabilities for the effect on predischarge mortality, defined stopping guidelines for a clinically meaningful effect, and derived posterior probabilities for predischarge mortality.

RESULTS

Bayesian relative risk estimates for predischarge mortality were closer to 1.0 than were frequentist estimates. Posterior probabilities suggested increased predischarge mortality (relative risk > 1.0) for the three intervention groups; two crossed the Bayesian futility threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Bayesian analysis incorporating previous trial results and different pre-existing opinions can help interpret accruing data and facilitate informed stopping decisions that are likely to be meaningful and convincing to clinicians, meta-analysts, and guideline developers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01192776 . Registered on 31 August 2010.