Evaluating treatment efficacy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with applications to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1177/17407745241238443
Dan-Yu Lin, Jianqiao Wang, Yu Gu, Donglin Zeng
{"title":"Evaluating treatment efficacy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with applications to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials","authors":"Dan-Yu Lin, Jianqiao Wang, Yu Gu, Donglin Zeng","doi":"10.1177/17407745241238443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe current endpoints for therapeutic trials of hospitalized COVID-19 patients capture only part of the clinical course of a patient and have limited statistical power and robustness.MethodsWe specify proportional odds models for repeated measures of clinical status, with a common odds ratio of lower severity over time. We also specify the proportional hazards model for time to each level of improvement or deterioration of clinical status, with a common hazard ratio for overall treatment benefit. We apply these methods to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials.ResultsFor remdesivir versus placebo, the common odds ratio was 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23–1.79; p < 0.001), and the common hazard ratio was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.09–1.47; p = 0.002). For baricitinib plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10–1.57; p = 0.002), and the common hazard ratio was 1.30 (95% CI = 1.13–1.49; p < 0.001). For interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.79–1.14; p = 0.56), and the common hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.85–1.12; p = 0.74).ConclusionsThe proposed methods comprehensively characterize the treatment effects on the entire clinical course of a hospitalized COVID-19 patient.","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241238443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundThe current endpoints for therapeutic trials of hospitalized COVID-19 patients capture only part of the clinical course of a patient and have limited statistical power and robustness.MethodsWe specify proportional odds models for repeated measures of clinical status, with a common odds ratio of lower severity over time. We also specify the proportional hazards model for time to each level of improvement or deterioration of clinical status, with a common hazard ratio for overall treatment benefit. We apply these methods to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials.ResultsFor remdesivir versus placebo, the common odds ratio was 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23–1.79; p < 0.001), and the common hazard ratio was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.09–1.47; p = 0.002). For baricitinib plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10–1.57; p = 0.002), and the common hazard ratio was 1.30 (95% CI = 1.13–1.49; p < 0.001). For interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.79–1.14; p = 0.56), and the common hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.85–1.12; p = 0.74).ConclusionsThe proposed methods comprehensively characterize the treatment effects on the entire clinical course of a hospitalized COVID-19 patient.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估住院 COVID-19 患者的疗效,并将其应用于适应性 COVID-19 治疗试验
背景目前针对住院 COVID-19 患者的治疗试验终点仅能捕捉到患者临床过程的一部分,其统计能力和稳健性有限。我们还为临床状况的每一级改善或恶化指定了比例危险模型,并为总体治疗获益设定了共同危险比。我们将这些方法应用于自适应 COVID-19 治疗试验。结果对于雷米替韦与安慰剂相比,常见的几率比为 1.48(95% 置信区间 (CI) = 1.23-1.79;p < 0.001),常见的危险比为 1.27(95% CI = 1.09-1.47;p = 0.002)。巴利替尼加雷米替韦与单用雷米替韦相比,共同几率比为1.32(95% CI = 1.10-1.57;p = 0.002),共同危险比为1.30(95% CI = 1.13-1.49;p <;0.001)。对于β-1a干扰素加雷米替韦与单用雷米替韦,共同几率比为0.95 (95% CI = 0.79-1.14; p = 0.56),共同危险比为0.98 (95% CI = 0.85-1.12; p = 0.74)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1