Clinical Trials最新文献

Duration of response is an important endpoint used in drug development. Prolonged duration for response is often viewed as an early indication of treatment efficacy. However, there are numerous difficulties in studying the distribution of duration of response based on observed data subject to right censoring in practice. The most important obstacle is that the distribution of the duration of response is in general not identifiable in the presence of censoring due to the simple fact that there is no information on the joint distribution of time to response and time to progression beyond the largest follow-up time. In this article, we introduce the restricted duration of response as a replacement of the conventional duration of response. The distribution of restricted duration of response is estimable and we have proposed several nonparametric estimators in this article. The corresponding inference procedure and additional downstream analysis have been developed. Extensive numerical simulations have been conducted to examine the finite sample performance of the proposed estimators. It appears that a new regression-based two-step estimator for the survival function of the restricted duration of response tends to have a robust and superior performance, and we recommend its use in practice. A real data example from oncology has been used to illustrate the analysis for restricted duration of response.

A clinical trial represents a large commitment from all individuals involved and a huge financial obligation given its high cost; therefore, it is wise to make the most of all collected data by learning as much as possible. A multistate model is a generalized framework to describe longitudinal events; multistate hazards models can treat multiple intermediate/final clinical endpoints as outcomes and estimate the impact of covariates simultaneously. Proportional hazards models are fitted (one per transition), which can be used to calculate the absolute risks, that is, the probability of being in a state at a given time, the expected number of visits to a state, and the expected amount of time spent in a state. Three publicly available clinical trial datasets, colon, myeloid, and rhDNase, in the survival package in R were used to showcase the utility of multistate hazards models. In the colon dataset, a very well-known and well-used dataset, we found that the levamisole+fluorouracil treatment extended time in the recurrence-free state more than it extended overall survival, which resulted in less time in the recurrence state, an example of the classic "compression of morbidity." In the myeloid dataset, we found that complete response (CR) is durable, patients who received treatment B have longer sojourn time in CR than patients who received treatment A, while the mutation status does not impact the transition rate to CR but is highly influential on the sojourn time in CR. We also found that more patients in treatment A received transplants without CR, and more patients in treatment B received transplants after CR. In addition, the mutation status is highly influential on the CR to transplant transition rate. The observations that we made on these three datasets would not be possible without multistate models. We want to encourage readers to spend more time to look deeper into clinical trial data. It has a lot more to offer than a simple yes/no answer if only we, the statisticians, are willing to look for it.

Background/aims: Information regarding the use of wearable devices in clinical research, including disease areas, intervention techniques, trends in device types, and sample size targets, remains elusive. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of clinical research trends related to wristband wearable devices in research planning and examined their applications in clinical investigations.

Methods: As this study identified trends in the adoption of wearable devices during the planning phase of clinical research, including specific disease areas and targeted number of intervention cases, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov-a prominent platform for registering and disseminating clinical research. Since wrist-worn devices represent a large share of the market, we focused on wrist-worn devices and selected the most representative models among them. The main analysis focused on major wearable devices to facilitate data analysis and interpretation, but other wearables were also surveyed for reference. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov with the keywords "ActiGraph,""Apple Watch,""Empatica,""Fitbit,""Garmin," and "wearable devices" to obtain studies published up to 21 August 2022. This initial search yielded 3214 studies. After excluding duplicate National Clinical Trial studies (the overlap was permissible among different device types except for wearable devices), our analysis focused on 2930 studies, including simple, time-series, and type-specific assessments of various variables.

Results: Overall, an increasing number of clinical studies have incorporated wearable devices since 2012. While ActiGraph and Fitbit initially dominated this landscape, the use of other devices has steadily increased, constituting approximately 10% of the total after 2015. Observational studies outnumbered intervention studies, with behavioral and device-based interventions being particularly prevalent. Regarding disease types, cancer and cardiovascular diseases accounted for approximately 20% of the total. Notably, 114 studies adopted multiple devices simultaneously within the context of their clinical investigations.

Conclusions: Our findings revealed that the utilization of wearable devices for data collection and behavioral interventions in various disease areas has been increasing over time since 2012. The increase in the number of studies over the past 3 years has been particularly significant, suggesting that this trend will continue to accelerate in the future. Devices and their evaluation methods that have undergone thorough validation, confirmed their accuracy, and adhered to established legal regulations will likely assume a pivotal role in evaluations, allowing for remote clinical trials. Moreover, behavioral intervention therapy utilizing apps is becoming more extensive, and we expect to see more examples that will lead to their approval as programmed medical devices in the fu

Background: Heterogeneous outcome correlations across treatment arms and clusters have been increasingly acknowledged in cluster randomized trials with binary endpoints, where analytical methods have been developed to study such heterogeneity. However, cluster-specific outcome variances and correlations have yet to be studied for cluster randomized trials with continuous outcomes.

Methods: This article proposes models fitted in the Bayesian setting with hierarchical variance structure to quantify heterogeneous variances across clusters and explain it with cluster-level covariates when the outcome is continuous. The models can also be extended to analyzing heterogeneous variances in individually randomized group treatment trials, with arm-specific cluster-level covariates, or in partially nested designs. Simulation studies are carried out to validate the performance of the newly introduced models across different settings.

Results: Simulations showed that overall the newly introduced models have good performance, reporting low bias and approximately 95% coverage for the intraclass correlation coefficients and regression parameters in the variance model. When variances are heterogeneous, our proposed models had improved model fit over models with homogeneous variances. When used to analyze data from the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program study, our models identified heterogeneous variances and intraclass correlation coefficients across clusters and examined cluster-level characteristics associated with such heterogeneity.

Conclusion: We proposed new hierarchical Bayesian variance models to accommodate cluster-specific variances in cluster randomized trials. The newly developed methods inform the understanding of how an intervention strategy is implemented and disseminated differently across clusters and can help improve future trial design.

Background: Public involvement enhances the relevance, quality, and impact of research. There is some evidence that public involvement in Australian research lags other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The purpose of the systematic review was to establish the rates and describe the characteristics of public involvement in Australian clinical trials.

Methods: We reviewed evidence of public involvement in all Australian randomised controlled trials published in the first 6 months of 2021. To determine the quality of public involvement, we used the five-item short-form version of the Guidance of Reporting Involvement Patients and the Public, version 2.

Results: In total, 325 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 17 (5%) reported any public involvement. Six trials reported public involvement in setting the research aim and seven in developing study methods. The authors of one study reflected on the overall role and influence of public involvement in the research.

Conclusion: Rate of public involvement in Australian clinical trials is seemingly substantially lower than those reported in countries with similar advanced public health care systems, notably the United Kingdom. Our observations may be explained by a lack of researcher skills in how to involve the public and the failure by major funding agencies in Australia to mandate public involvement when deciding on how to award grant funding.

Background/aims: Evaluating safety is as important as evaluating efficacy in a clinical trial, yet the tradition for safety analysis is rudimentary. This article explores more complex methodologies for safety evaluation, with the aim of improving the interpretability, as well as generalizability, of the results.

Methods: For studies where the analysis periods vary over the subjects, using the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework, we construct a formal estimand that could be used in the setting of safety surveillance that answers the clinical question of 'What is the magnitude of the increase in risk of experiencing an adverse event if the treatment is taken, as prescribed, for a specific period of time?'. Estimation methodologies for this estimand are also discussed.

Results: The proposed estimand is similar to that found in the efficacy analyses of time to event data (e.g. in outcome studies), with the key difference of utilization of hypothetical intercurrent event strategy for the intercurrent event of treatment discontinuation. This is motivated by what we perceive to be a key difference for the safety objective compared to efficacy objectives, namely a desire for sensitivity (i.e. greater possibility of detecting a negative impact of the drug, if such exists) as opposed to the need to prove a positive effect of the drug in a conservative manner.

Conclusion: It is valuable, and possible, to use the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework not only for efficacy but also for safety evaluation, with the estimand driven by an interpretable, and relevant, clinical question.

Background: Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).

Methods: In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.

Results: In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.

Conclusion: Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.

Background/aims: The demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials.

Methods: Databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool.

Results: Forty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data.

Conclusions: As linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.