Clinical Trials最新文献

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary.

Methods: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline.

Results: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary.

Conclusions: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

Pragmatic clinical trials of standard-of-care interventions compare the relative merits of medical treatments already in use. Traditional research informed consent processes pose significant obstacles to these trials, raising the question of whether they may be conducted with alteration or waiver of informed consent. However, to even be eligible, such a trial in the United States must have no more than minimal research risk. We argue that standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials can be designed to ensure that they are minimal research risk if the random assignment of an intervention in a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate individualized, clinically motivated decision-making for each participant. Such a design will ensure that the patient-participants are not exposed to any risks beyond the clinical risks of the interventions, and thus, the trial will have minimal research risk. We explain the logic of this view by comparing three scenarios of standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: one with informed consent, one without informed consent, and one recently proposed design called Decision Architecture Randomization Trial. We then conclude by briefly showing that our proposal suggests a natural way to determine when to use an alteration versus a waiver of informed consent.

The protection from COVID-19 vaccination wanes a few months post-administration of the primary vaccination series or booster doses. New COVID-19 vaccine candidates aiming to help control COVID-19 should show long-term efficacy, allowing a possible annual administration. Until correlates of protection are strongly associated with long-term protection, it has been suggested that any new COVID-19 vaccine candidate must demonstrate at least 75% efficacy (although a 40%-60% efficacy would be sufficient) at 12 months in preventing illness in all age groups within a large randomized controlled efficacy trial. This article discusses four of the many scientific, ethical, and operational challenges that these trials will face in developed countries, focusing on a pivotal trial in adults. These challenges are (1) the comparator and trial population; (2) how to enroll sufficient numbers of adult participants of all age groups considering that countries will recommend COVID-19 booster doses to different populations; (3) whether having access to a comparator booster for the trial is actually feasible; and (4) the changing epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 across countries involved in the trial. It is desirable that regulatory agencies publish guidance on the requirements that a trial like the one discussed should comply with to be acceptable from a regulatory standpoint. Ideally, this should happen even before there is a vaccine candidate that could fulfill the requirements mentioned above, as it would allow an open discussion among all stakeholders on its appropriateness and feasibility.

Monitoring the conduct of phase III randomized controlled trials is driven by ethical reasons to protect the study integrity and the safety of trial participants. We propose a group sequential, pragmatic approach for monitoring the accumulating efficacy information in randomized controlled trials. The "Population Health Research Institute boundary" is simple to implement and sensible, as it considers the reduction in uncertainty with increasing information as the study progresses. It is also pragmatic, since it takes into consideration the typical monitoring behavior of monitoring committees of large multicenter trials and is relatively easily implemented. It not only controls the overall Lan-DeMets type I error probability (alpha) spent, but performs better than other group sequential boundaries for the total nominal study alpha. We illustrate the use of our monitoring approach in the early termination of two past completed trials.