Dataset Information

Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.

Study selection

Animal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.

Results

Corticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to 4.7%).

Conclusions

Discordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.

SUBMITTER: Perel P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1781970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in the use of wearables in medical care is increasing. Wearables can be used to monitor different variables, such as vital signs and physical activity. A crucial point for using wearables in oncology is if patients already under the burden of severe disease and oncological treatment can accept and adhere to the device. At present, there are no specific recommendations for the use of wearables in oncology, and little research has examined the purpose of using wearables in oncology.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to explore the use of wearables in clinical trials during cancer treatment, with a special focus on adherence.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched prior and up to October 3, 2019, with no limitation in the date of publication. The search strategy was aimed at studies using wearables for monitoring adult patients with cancer during active antineoplastic treatment. Studies were screened independently by 2 reviewers by title and abstract, selected for inclusion and exclusion, and the full-text was assessed for eligibility. Data on study design, type of wearable used, primary outcome, adherence, and device outcome were extracted. Results were presented descriptively.ResultsOur systematic search identified 1269 studies, of which 25 studies met our inclusion criteria. The types of cancer represented in the studies were breast (7/25), gastrointestinal (4/25), lung (4/25), and gynecologic (1/25); 9 studies had multiple types of cancer. Oncologic treatment was primarily chemotherapy (17/25). The study-type distribution was pilot/feasibility study (12/25), observational study (10/25), and randomized controlled trial (3/25). The median sample size was 40 patients (range 7-180). All studies used a wearable with an accelerometer. Adherence varied across studies, from 60%-100% for patients wearing the wearable/evaluable sensor data and 45%-94% for evaluable days, but was differently measured and reported. Of the 25 studies, the most frequent duration for planned monitoring with a wearable was 8-30 days (13/25). Topics for wearable outcomes were physical activity (19/25), circadian rhythm (8/25), sleep (6/25), and skin temperature (1/25). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were used in 17 studies; of the 17 PRO studies, only 9 studies reported correlations between the wearable outcome and the PRO.ConclusionsWe found that definitions of outcome measures and adherence varied across studies, and limited consensus among studies existed on which variables to monitor during treatment. Less heterogeneity, better consensus in terms of the use of wearables, and established standards for the definitions of wearable outcomes and adherence would improve comparisons of outcomes from studies using wearables. Adherence, and the definition of such, seems crucial to conclude on data from wearable studies in oncology. Additionally, research using advanced wearable devices and active use of the data are encouraged to further explore the potential of wearables in oncology during treatment. Particularly, randomized clinical studies are warranted to create consensus on when and how to implement in oncological practice.

Project description:Translation from preclinical animal research to clinical bedside has proven to be difficult to impossible in many fields of research (e.g. acute stroke, ALS and HIV vaccination development) with oncology showing particularly low translation rates (5% vs. 20% for cardiovascular diseases). Several investigations on published preclinical animal research have revealed that apart from plain species differences, translational problems can arise from low study quality (e.g. study design) or non-representative experimental conditions (e.g. treatment schedule). This review assessed the published experimental circumstances and quality of anti-angiogenic cancer drug development in 232 in vivo studies. The quality of study design was often insufficient; at least the information published about the experiments was not satisfactory in most cases. There was no quality improvement over time, with the exception of conflict of interest statements. This increase presumably arose mainly because journal guidelines request such statements more often recently. Visual inspection of data and a cluster analysis confirmed a trend described in literature that low study quality tends to overestimate study outcome. It was also found that experimental outcome was more favorable when a potential drug was investigated as the main focus of a study, compared to drugs that were used as comparison interventions. We assume that this effect arises from the frequent neglect of blinding investigators towards treatment arms and refer to it as hypothesis bias. In conclusion, the reporting and presumably also the experimental performance of animal studies in drug development for oncology suffer from similar shortcomings as other fields of research (such as stroke or ALS). We consider it necessary to enforce experimental quality and reporting that corresponds to the level of clinical studies. It seems that only clear journal guidelines or guidelines from licensing authorities, where failure to fulfill prevents publication or experimental license, can help to improve this situation.