Clinical Trials最新文献

Phase I dose-escalation studies for a single-agent and combination of anti-cancer agents have explored various model-based designs to guide identification of a maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose. This work describes a parallel approach to dose escalation to expedite identification of maximum tolerated doses both for an anti-cancer agent as monotherapy and in combination with another agent. We develop a three-parameter Bayesian logistic regression model that allows for more efficient use of information between monotherapy and combination parts of the study. The model allows the monotherapy and combination data to drive dose escalation of the combination of treatments, reflecting the known dose-toxicity relationship between the monotherapy and combination setting. Through a thorough simulation study in which the proposed model is compared to two comparative approaches, the three-parameter Bayesian logistic regression model is shown to accurately select doses in the target toxicity interval, performing similar to comparative approaches in terms of proportion of target dose/combination selection, while more than halving the proportion of doses selected that were greater than the target toxicity, thereby improving safety concerns.

Unlocking the power of personalised medicine in oncology hinges on the integration of clinical trial data with translational data (i.e. biospecimen-derived molecular information). This combined analysis allows researchers to tailor treatments to a patient's unique biological makeup. However, current practices within UK Clinical Trials Units present challenges. While clinical data are held in standardised formats, translational data are complex, diverse, and requires specialised storage. This disparity in format creates significant hurdles for researchers aiming to curate, integrate and analyse these datasets effectively. This article proposes a novel solution: an open-source SQL database schema designed specifically for the needs of academic trial units. Inspired by Cancer Research UK's commitment to open data sharing and exemplified by the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit's CONFIRM trial (with over 150,000 clinical data points), this schema offers a cost-effective and practical 'middle ground' between raw data and expensive Secure Data Environments/Trusted Research Environments. By acting as a central hub for both clinical and translational data, the schema facilitates seamless data sharing and analysis. Researchers gain a holistic view of trials, enabling exploration of connections between clinical observations and the molecular underpinnings of treatment response. Detailed instructions for setting up the database are provided. The open-source nature and straightforward design ensure ease of implementation and affordability, while robust security measures safeguard sensitive data. We further showcase how researchers can leverage popular statistical software like R to directly query the database. This approach fosters collaboration within the academic discovery community, ultimately accelerating progress towards personalised cancer therapies.

Background: N-of-1 trials compare two or more treatment options for a single participant. These trials have been used to study options for chronic conditions such as arthritis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In addition, they have been suggested as a means to study interventions in rare populations that may not be tractable to include in standard clinical trials, such as treatment options for HIV-positive patients in need of organ transplant. Sequential monitoring of accruing data has been well-studied in traditional clinical trials, but these methods have not yet been implemented in N-of-1 trials. However, the option to validly stop an N-of-1 trial early could deliver faster decisions that could directly improve the patient's health.

Methods: In this work, we propose and evaluate a framework to (1) facilitate sequential monitoring in individual N-of-1 trials with a continuous outcome and (2) combine results across a series of already-completed sequentially monitored N-of-1 trials. By employing the block structure common to N-of-1 trials, we suggest that existing approaches to sequential monitoring may be employed when data from one N-of-1 trial are analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model. To combine results across a series of already-completed sequentially monitored N-of-1 trials, we propose combining the naive estimates from constituent trials in a random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting. We evaluate these proposals via simulation.

Results: We find that type 1 error can be substantially inflated for N-of-1 trials with a small number of planned blocks but can reach the nominal rate for trials with more planned blocks or those with larger numbers of periods per block or by using a $t$-value correction. For those settings with acceptable type 1 error, sequential monitoring results in similar power and on average earlier stopping compared with trials with no sequential monitoring. And, as expected, we find that including a larger number of constituent trials in a series reduces the mean-squared error of the combined point estimator.

Conclusion: Under suitable design considerations, our proposed framework for sequential monitoring can support clinicians in providing important decisions earlier, on average, for patients engaged in N-of-1 trials.

Background: Clinical trials handle a huge amount of data which can be used during the trial to improve the ongoing study conduct. It is suggested by regulators to implement the remote approach to evaluate clinical trials by analysing collected data. Central statistical monitoring helps to achieve that by employing quantitative methods, the results of which are a basis for decision-making on quality issues.

Methods: This article presents a scoping review which is based on a systematic and iterative approach to identify and synthesise literature on central statistical monitoring methodology. In particular, we investigated the decision-making processes (with emphasis on quality issues) of central statistical monitoring methodology and its place in the clinical trial workflow. We reviewed papers published over the last 10 years in two databases (Scopus and Web of Science) with a focus on data mining algorithms of central statistical monitoring and its benefit to the quality of trials.

Results: As a result, 24 scientific papers were selected for this review, and they consider central statistical monitoring at two levels. First, the perspective of the central statistical monitoring process and its location in the study conduct in terms of quality issues. Second, central statistical monitoring methods categorised into practices applied in the industry, and innovative methods in development. The established methods are discussed through the prism of categories of their usage. In turn, the innovations refer to either research on new methods or extensions to existing ones.

Discussion: Our review suggests directions for further research into central statistical monitoring methodology - including increased application of multivariate analysis and using advanced distance metrics - and guidance on how central statistical monitoring operates in response to regulators' requirements.

BackgroundPre-specified interim analyses allow for more timely evaluation of efficacy or futility, potentially accelerating decision-making on an investigational intervention. In such an analysis, the randomized, double-blind MOVe-OUT trial demonstrated superiority of molnupiravir over placebo for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 in high-risk patients. In the full analysis population, the point estimate of the treatment difference in the primary endpoint was notably lower than at the interim analysis. We conducted a comprehensive assessment to investigate this unexpected difference in treatment effect size, with the goal of informing future clinical research evaluating treatments for rapidly evolving infectious diseases.MethodsThe modified intention-to-treat population of the MOVe-OUT trial was divided into an interim analysis cohort (i.e. all participants included in the interim analysis; prospectively defined) and a post-interim analysis cohort (i.e. all remaining participants; retrospectively defined). Baseline characteristics (including many well-established prognostic factors for disease progression), clinical outcomes, and virologic outcomes were retrospectively evaluated. The impact of changes in baseline characteristics over time was explored using logistic regression modeling and simulations.ResultsBaseline characteristics were well-balanced between arms overall. However, between- and within-arm differences in known prognostic baseline factors (e.g. comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2 viral load, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody status) were observed for the interim and post-interim analysis cohorts. For the individual factors, these differences were generally minor and otherwise not notable; as the trial progressed, however, these shifts in combination increasingly favored the placebo arm across most of the evaluated factors in the post-interim cohort. Model-based simulations confirmed that the reduction in effect size could be accounted for by these longitudinal trends toward a lower-risk study population among placebo participants. Infectivity and viral load data confirmed that molnupiravir's antiviral activity was consistent across both cohorts, which were heavily dominated by different viral clades (reflecting the rapid SARS-CoV-2 evolution).DiscussionThe cumulative effect of randomly occurring minor differences in prognostic baseline characteristics within and between arms over time, rather than virologic factors such as reduced activity of molnupiravir against evolving variants, likely impacted the observed outcomes. Our results have broader implications for group sequential trials seeking to evaluate treatments for rapidly emerging pathogens. During dynamic epidemic or pandemic conditions, adaptive trials should be designed and interpreted especially carefully, considering that they will likely rapidly enroll a large post-interim overrun population and that even small longitudinal shifts across multiple baseline variables can disproporti

BackgroundIn randomized clinical trials, multiple-testing procedures, composite endpoints, and prioritized outcome approaches are increasingly used to analyze multiple binary outcomes. Previous studies have shown that correlations between outcomes influence their sample size requirements. Although sample size is an important factor affecting the choice of statistical methods, the power and required sample sizes of methods for analyzing multiple binary outcomes have yet to be compared under the influence of outcome correlations.MethodsWe conducted simulations to evaluate the power of co-primary and multiple primary endpoints, composite endpoints, and prioritized outcome approaches based on generalized pairwise comparisons with varying correlations, marginal proportions, treatment effects, and number of outcomes. We then conducted a case study on sample size using a clinical trial of a migraine treatment as an example.ResultsThe correlations significantly affected the statistical power and sample size of composite endpoints. The power and sample size of co-primary endpoints remained relatively stable across different correlations, though their power declined substantially when treatment effects were opposite on some components or more than two components were present. While the correlations influenced the power and sample size of all methods assessed, their direction and degree of influence varied between methods. Notably, the method with the greatest power and smallest sample size also differed depending on the correlations. When the correlations were the same between arms, prioritized outcome approaches usually had higher power and smaller sample sizes than other methods.ConclusionsAnticipated correlations and their uncertainty should be considered when selecting statistical methods. Overall, co-primary endpoints remain a reliable option for evaluating the superiority of all components, although they are unsuitable for assessing the balance between treatment effects pointing in different directions. Generalized pairwise comparisons offer a useful alternative to deal with multiple prioritized outcomes, often providing the smallest sample sizes when the correlation structures are shared between the arms.

Background/aims: People with disability have higher rates of cancer, excluding skin cancer, compared with people without disability. Food and Drug Administration draft guidelines from 2024 address use of performance status criteria to determine eligibility for clinical trials, advocating for less restrictive thresholds. We examined the exclusion of people with disability from clinical trials based on performance status and other criteria.

Methods: We reviewed eligibility criteria in approved interventional Phase III and Phase IV oncology clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrails.gov between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2023. Functional status thresholds were assessed using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale and Karnofsky Performance Scale in clinical trial eligibility criteria. Qualitative analysis was used to review eligibility criteria relating to functional impairments or disability.

Results: Among 96 oncology clinical trials, approximately 40% had restrictive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Karnofsky Performance Scale thresholds, explicitly including only patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 or 1, or equivalent Karnofsky Performance Scale 70 or greater. Only 20% of studies included patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2 and Karnofsky Performance Scale 60. Multiple studies contained miscellaneous eligibility criteria that could potentially exclude people with disability. No studies described making accommodations for people with disability to participate in the clinical trial.

Conclusion: Draft Food and Drug Administration guidelines recommend including patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores of 2 and Karnofsky Performance Scale scores of 60 in oncology clinical trials. We found that oncology clinical trials often exclude people with more restrictive performance status scores than the draft Food and Drug Administration guidelines, as well as other criteria that relate to disability. These estimates provide baseline information for assessing how the 2024 Food and Drug Administration guidance, if finalized, might affect the inclusion of people with disability in future trials.