Clinical Trials最新文献

Background: There are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community. However, there is no standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise and prepare clinical trial datasets for sharing, while an ever-increasing number of anonymised datasets are becoming available for secondary research. Our aim was to explore the current views and experiences of researchers in the United Kingdom about de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.

Methods: We used an online exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey that consisted of both open-ended and closed questions.

Results: We had 38 responses to invitation from June 2022 to October 2022. However, 35 participants (92%) used internal documentation and published guidance to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial datasets. De-identification, followed by anonymisation and then fulfilling data holders' requirements before access was granted (controlled access), was the most common process for releasing the datasets as reported by 18 (47%) participants. However, 11 participants (29%) had previous knowledge of re-identification risk estimation, but they did not use any of the methodologies. Experiences in the process of de-identifying/anonymising the datasets and maintaining such datasets were mostly negative, and the main reported issues were lack of resources, guidance, and training.

Conclusion: The majority of responders reported using documented processes for de-identification and anonymisation. However, our survey results clearly indicate that there are still gaps in the areas of guidance, resources and training to fulfil sharing requests of de-identified/anonymised datasets, and that re-identification risk estimation is an underdeveloped area.

Background: Randomized controlled trials with pragmatic intent aim to generate evidence that directly informs clinical decisions. Some have argued that the ethical protection of informed consent can be in tension with the goals of pragmatism. But the impact of other ethical protections on trial pragmatism has yet to be explored.

Purpose: In this article, we analyze the relationship between additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants and the degree of pragmatism within the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) domains of trial design.

Methods: We analyze three example trials with pragmatic intent that include vulnerable participants.

Conclusion: The relationship between ethical protections and trial pragmatism is complex. In some cases, additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants can promote the pragmatism of some of the PRECIS-2 domains of trial design. When designing trials with pragmatic intent, researchers ought to look for opportunities wherein ethical protections enhance the degree of pragmatism.

Background: Restricted mean survival time is the expected duration of survival up to a chosen time of restriction $\tau$. For comparison studies, the difference in restricted mean survival times between two groups provides a summary measure of the treatment effect that is free of assumptions regarding the relative shape of the two survival curves, such as proportional hazards. However, it can be difficult to judge the magnitude of the effect from a comparison of restricted means due to the truncation of observation at time $\tau$.

Methods: In this article, we describe additional ways of expressing the treatment effect based on restricted means that can be helpful in this regard. These include the ratio of restricted means, the ratio of life-years (or time) lost, and the average integrated difference between the survival curves, equal to the difference in restricted means divided by $\tau .$ These alternative metrics are straightforward to calculate and provide a means for scaling the effect size as an aid to interpretation. Examples from two randomized, multicenter clinical trials in prostate cancer, NRG/RTOG 0521 and NRG/RTOG 0534, with primary endpoints of overall survival and biochemical/radiological progression-free survival, respectively, are presented to illustrate the ideas.

Results: The four effect measures (restricted mean survival time difference, restricted mean survival time ratio, time lost ratio, and average survival rate difference) were 0.45 years, 1.05, 0.81, and 0.038 for RTOG 0521 and 1.36 years, 1.17, 0.56, and 0.12 for RTOG 0534 with $\tau$ = 12 and 11 years, respectively. Thus, for example, the 0.45-year difference in the first trial translates into a 19% reduction in time lost and a 3.8% average absolute difference between the survival curves over the 12-year horizon, a modest effect size, whereas the 1.36-year difference in the second trial corresponds to a 44% reduction in time lost and a 12% absolute survival difference, a rather large effect.

Conclusions: In addition to the difference in restricted mean survival times, these alternative measures can be helpful in determining whether the magnitude of the treatment effect is clinically meaningful.

Background/aims: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of ordinal, binary, and numerical composite endpoints among coronavirus disease 2019 trials and the potential bias attributable to their use.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and bias associated with using composite endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized clinical trials. We compared the effect measure (relative risk) of composite outcomes and that of its most critical component (i.e. death) by estimating the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index [ln(relative risk for the composite outcome)/ln(relative risk for death)].

Results: Composite endpoints accounted for 152 out of 417 primary endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized trials, being more frequent among studies published in high-impact journals. Ordinal endpoints were the most common (54% of all composites), followed by binary or time-to-event (34%), numerical (11%), and hierarchical (1%). Composites predominated among trials enrolling patients with severe disease when compared to trials with a mild or moderate case mix (odds ratio = 1.72). Adaptations of the seven-point World Health Organization scale occurred in 40% of the ordinal primary endpoints, which frequently underwent dichotomization for the statistical analyses. Mortality accounted for a median of 24% (interquartile range: 6%-48%) of all events when included in the composite. The median point estimate of the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index was 0.3 (interquartile range: -0.1 to 0.7), being significantly lower than 1 in 5 of 24 comparisons.

Discussion: Composite endpoints were used in a significant proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 trials, especially those involving severely ill patients. This is likely due to the higher anticipated rates of competing events, such as death, in such studies. Ordinal composites were common but often not fully appreciated, reducing the potential gains in information and statistical efficiency. For studies with binary composites, death was the most frequent component, and, unexpectedly, composite outcome estimates were often closer to the null when compared to those for mortality death. Numerical composites were less common, and only two trials used hierarchical endpoints. These newer approaches may offer advantages over traditional binary and ordinal composites; however, their potential benefits warrant further scrutiny.

Conclusion: Composite endpoints accounted for more than a third of coronavirus disease 2019 trials' primary endpoints; their use was more common among studies that included patients with severe disease and their point effect estimates tended to underestimate those for mortality.

Background/aims: Excessive use of antibiotics has led to development of antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic-associated complications. Dermatologists prescribe more antibiotics per clinician than any other major specialty, with much of this use for acne. Alternative acne treatments are available but are used much less often than antibiotics, at least partially because dermatologists feel that they are less effective. Spironolactone, a hormonal therapy with antiandrogen effects that can address the hormonal pathogenesis of acne, may represent a therapeutic alternative to oral antibiotics for women with acne. However, the comparative effects of spironolactone and oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne have not been definitively studied. The Spironolactone versus Doxycycline for Acne: A Comparative Effectiveness, Noninferiority Evaluation (SD-ACNE) trial aims to answer whether spironolactone, in addition to standard topical therapy, is noninferior to doxycycline (an oral antibiotic) for women with acne. Several interesting challenges arose in the development of this study, including determining acceptability of the comparative regimens to participating dermatologists, identifying data to support a noninferiority margin, and establishing a process for unblinding participants after they completed the study while maintaining the blind for study investigators.

Methods: We present the scientific and clinical rationale for the decisions made in the design of the trial, including input from key stakeholders through a Delphi consensus process.

Results: The Spironolactone versus Doxycycline for Acne: A Comparative Effectiveness, Noninferiority Evaluation trial (NCT04582383) is being conducted at a range of community and academic sites in the United States. To maximize external validity and inform clinical practice, the study is designed with broad eligibility criteria and no prohibition of use of topical medications. Participants in the trial will be randomized to receive either spironolactone 100 mg/day or doxycycline hyclate 100 mg/day for 16 weeks. The primary outcome is the absolute decrease in inflammatory lesion count, and we have established a noninferiority margin of four inflammatory lesions. Secondary outcomes include the percentage of participants achieving Investigator Global Assessment success, change in quality of life, and microbiome changes and diversity.

Conclusions: The Spironolactone versus Doxycycline for Acne: A Comparative Effectiveness, Noninferiority Evaluation trial will have substantial implications for the treatment of acne and antibiotic stewardship. In addition, this study will provide important information on the effect of these systemic agents on the development of changes to the microbiome and antibiotic resistance in a healthy population of patients.

Background/aims: Certain sociodemographic groups are routinely underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting generalisability. Here, we describe the extent to which enriched enrolment approaches yielded a diverse trial population enriched for older age in a randomised controlled trial of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection test (NCT05611632).

Methods: Participants aged 50-77 years were recruited from eight Cancer Alliance regions in England. Most were identified and invited from centralised health service lists; a dynamic invitation algorithm was used to target those in older and more deprived groups. Others were invited by their general practice surgery (GP-based Participant Identification Centres in selected regions); towards the end of recruitment, specifically Asian and Black individuals were invited via this route, as part of a concerted effort to encourage enrolment among these individuals. Some participants self-referred, often following engagement activities involving community organisations. Enrolment took place in 11 mobile clinics at 151 locations that were generally more socioeconomically deprived and ethnically diverse than the England average. We reduced logistical barriers to trial participation by offering language interpretation and translation and disabled access measures. After enrolment, we examined (1) sociodemographic distribution of participants versus England and Cancer Alliance populations, and (2) number needed to invite (NNI; the number of invitations sent to enrol one participant) by age, sex, index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and ethnicity, and GP surgery-level bowel screening participation.

Results: Approximately 1.5 million individuals were invited and 142,924 enrolled (98% via centralised health service lists/invitation algorithm) in 10.5 months. The enrolled population was older and more deprived than the England population aged 50-77 years (73.3% vs 56.8% aged 60-77 years; 42.3% vs 35.3% in IMD groups 1-2). Ethnic diversity was lower in the trial than the England population (1.4% vs 2.8% Black; 3.3% vs 5.3% Asian). NNI was highest in Black (32.8), Asian (28.2) and most-deprived (21.5) groups, and lowest in mixed ethnicity (8.1) and least-deprived (4.6) groups.

Conclusions: Enrolment approaches used in the NHS-Galleri trial enabled recruitment of an older, socioeconomically diverse participant population relatively rapidly. Compared with the England and Cancer Alliance populations, the enrolled population was enriched for those in older age and more deprived groups. Better ethnicity data availability in central health service records could enable better invitation targeting to further enhance ethnically diverse recruitment. Future research should evaluate approaches used to facilitate recruitment from underrepresented groups in clinical trials.