Clinical Trials最新文献

Background: The Bayesian group sequential design has been applied widely in clinical studies, especially in Phase II and III studies. It allows early termination based on accumulating interim data. However, to date, there lacks development in its application to stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, which are gaining popularity in pragmatic trials conducted by clinical and health care delivery researchers.

Methods: We propose a Bayesian adaptive design approach for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, which makes adaptive decisions based on the predictive probability of declaring the intervention effective at the end of study given interim data. The Bayesian models and the algorithms for posterior inference and trial conduct are presented.

Results: We present how to determine design parameters through extensive simulations to achieve desired operational characteristics. We further evaluate how various design factors, such as the number of steps, cluster size, random variability in cluster size, and correlation structures, impact trial properties, including power, type I error, and the probability of early stopping. An application example is presented.

Conclusion: This study presents the incorporation of Bayesian adaptive strategies into stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials design. The proposed approach provides the flexibility to stop the trial early if substantial evidence of efficacy or futility is observed, improving the flexibility and efficiency of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.

Background: Knowing the predictive factors of the variation in a center-level continuous outcome of interest is valuable in the design and analysis of parallel-arm cluster randomized trials. The symbolic two-step method for sample size planning that we present incorporates this knowledge while simultaneously accounting for patient-level characteristics. Our approach is illustrated through application to cluster randomized trials in cancer care delivery research. The required number of centers (clusters) depends on the between- and within-center variance; the within-center variance is a function of estimates obtained by regressing the log within-center variance on predictive factors. Obtaining accurate estimates of the components needed to characterize the within-center variation is challenging.

Methods: Using our previously derived sample size formula, our objective in the current research is to directly account for the imprecision in these estimates, using a Bayesian approach, to safeguard against designing an underpowered study when using the symbolic two-step method. Using estimates of the required components, including the number of centers that contribute to those estimates, we make formal allowance for the imprecision in these estimates on which a sample size will be based.

Results: The mean of the distribution for power is consistently smaller than the single point estimate that the sample size formula yields. The reduction in power is more pronounced in the presence of increased uncertainty about the estimates with the reduction becoming more attenuated with increased numbers of centers that contribute to the estimates.

Conclusions: Accounting for imprecision in the estimates of the components required for sample size estimation using the symbolic two-step method in the design of a cluster randomized trial yields conservative estimates of power.

Background/aims: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 103.4 million cases and 1.1 million deaths have occurred nationally as of November 2023. Despite the benefit of mitigating measures, the pandemic's effect on participant safety is rarely documented.

Methods: This study assessed noncompliance occurring from July 2019 to August 2021 that were stratified by the date of noncompliance (before or after restrictions). Events were described by size, site, noncompliance type, primary category, subcategory, and cause. In addition, noncompliance associated with COVID-19 was analyzed to determine characteristics.

Results: In total, 323 noncompliance events occurred across 21,146 participants at risk in 35 protocols. The overall rate of noncompliance increased from 0.008 events per participant to 0.022 events per participant after the COVID-19 restrictions (p < 0.001). For onsite protocols, the median within protocol change in rates was 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.141) after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.54). For large-sized protocols (n ≥ 100), the median within protocol change in rates was also 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.017) after COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.15). For events related to COVID-19 restrictions, 160/162 (99%) were minor deviations, 161/162 (99%) were procedural noncompliance, and 124/162 (77%) were an incomplete study visit.

Conclusion: These noncompliance events have implications for clinical trial methodology because nonadherence to trial design can lead to participant safety concerns and loss of trial data validity. Protocols should be written to better facilitate the capture of all safety and efficacy data. This recommendation should be considered when changes occur to the protocol environment that are outside of the study team's control.

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.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

Background/aims: Self-reported questionnaires on health status after randomized trials can be time-consuming, costly, and potentially unreliable. Administrative data sets may provide cost-effective, less biased information, but it is uncertain how administrative and self-reported data compare to identify chronic conditions in a New Zealand cohort. This study aimed to determine whether record linkage could replace self-reported questionnaires to identify chronic conditions that were the outcomes of interest for trial follow-up.

Methods: Participants in 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial were asked to complete a questionnaire and to consent to accessing administrative data. The proportion of participants with diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma was calculated using each data source and agreement between data sources assessed.

Results: Participants were aged 49 years (SD = 1, n = 424, 50% male). Agreement between questionnaire and administrative data was slight for pre-diabetes (kappa = 0.10), fair for hyperlipidaemia (kappa = 0.27), substantial for diabetes (kappa = 0.65), and moderate for other conditions (all kappa >0.42). Administrative data alone identified two to three times more cases than the questionnaire for all outcomes except hypertension and mental health disorders, where the questionnaire alone identified one to two times more cases than administrative data. Combining all sources increased case detection for all outcomes.

Conclusions: A combination of questionnaire, pharmaceutical, and laboratory data with expert panel review were required to identify participants with chronic conditions of interest in this follow-up of a clinical trial.

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.

In precision oncology, integrating multiple cancer patient subgroups into a single master protocol allows for the simultaneous assessment of treatment effects in these subgroups and promotes the sharing of information between them, ultimately reducing sample sizes and costs and enhancing scientific validity. However, the safety and efficacy of these therapies may vary across different subgroups, resulting in heterogeneous outcomes. Therefore, identifying subgroup-specific optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is crucial for the development of future trials. In this article, we review various innovative Bayesian information-borrowing strategies that aim to determine and optimize subgroup-specific doses. Specifically, we discuss Bayesian hierarchical modeling, Bayesian clustering, Bayesian model averaging or selection, pairwise borrowing, and other relevant approaches. By employing these Bayesian information-borrowing methods, investigators can gain a better understanding of the intricate relationships between dose, toxicity, and efficacy in each subgroup. This increased understanding significantly improves the chances of identifying an optimal dose tailored to each specific subgroup. Furthermore, we present several practical recommendations to guide the design of future early-phase oncology trials involving multiple subgroups when using the Bayesian information-borrowing methods.