Dataset Information

Genotype-based clinical trials in cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT: Consensus practice guidelines and the implementation of clinical therapeutic advances are usually based on the results of large, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, RCTs generally inform us on an average treatment effect for a presumably homogeneous population, but therapeutic interventions rarely benefit the entire population targeted. Indeed, multiple RCTs have demonstrated that interindividual variability exists both in drug response and in the development of adverse effects. The field of pharmacogenomics promises to deliver the right drug to the right patient. Substantial progress has been made in this field, with advances in technology, statistical and computational methods, and the use of cell and animal model systems. However, clinical implementation of pharmacogenetic principles has been difficult because RCTs demonstrating benefit are lacking. For patients, the potential benefits of performing such trials include the individualization of therapy to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse effects. These trials would also enable investigators to reduce sample size and hence contain costs for trial sponsors. Multiple ethical, legal, and practical issues need to be considered for the conduct of genotype-based RCTs. Whether pre-emptive genotyping embedded in electronic health records will preclude the need for performing genotype-based RCTs remains to be seen.

SUBMITTER: Pereira NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4687401 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genotype-based clinical trials in cardiovascular disease.

Pereira Naveen L NL Sargent Daniel J DJ Farkouh Michael E ME Rihal Charanjit S CS

Nature reviews. Cardiology 20150505 8

Consensus practice guidelines and the implementation of clinical therapeutic advances are usually based on the results of large, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, RCTs generally inform us on an average treatment effect for a presumably homogeneous population, but therapeutic interventions rarely benefit the entire population targeted. Indeed, multiple RCTs have demonstrated that interindividual variability exists both in drug response and in the development of adverse effects. The fiel ...[more]

PMID: 25940926

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSubgroup analyses are frequently used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomised clinical trials. Inconsistent, improper and incomplete implementation, reporting and interpretation have been identified as ongoing challenges. Further, subgroup analyses were frequently criticised because of unreliable or potentially misleading results. More recently, recommendations and guidelines have been provided to improve the reporting of data in this regard.MethodsThis systematic review was based on a literature search within the digital archives of three selected medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Circulation. We reviewed articles of randomised clinical trials in the domain of cardiovascular disease which were published in 2015 and 2016. We screened and evaluated the selected articles for the mode of implementation and reporting of subgroup analyses.ResultsWe were able to identify a total of 130 eligible publications of randomised clinical trials. In 89/130 (68%) articles, results of at least one subgroup analysis were presented. This was dependent on the considered journal (p < 0.001), the number of included patients (p < 0.001) and the lack of statistical significance of a trial's primary analysis (p < 0.001). The number of reported subgroup analyses ranged from 1 to 101 (median = 13). We were able to comprehend the specification time of reported subgroup analyses for 71/89 (80%) articles, with 55/89 (62%) articles presenting exclusively pre-specified analyses. This information was not always traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols and often did not include the pre-definition of cut-off values for the categorization of subgroups. The use of interaction tests was reported in 84/89 (94%) articles, with 36/89 (40%) articles reporting heterogeneity of the treatment effect for at least one primary or secondary trial outcome. Subgroup analyses were reported more frequently for larger randomised clinical trials, and if primary analyses did not reach statistical significance. Information about the implementation of subgroup analyses was reported most consistently for articles from The New England Journal of Medicine, since it was also traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols. We were able to comprehend whether subgroup analyses were pre-specified in a majority of the reviewed publications. Even though results of multiple subgroup analyses were reported for most published trials, a corresponding adjustment for multiple testing was rarely considered.ConclusionCompared to previous reviews in this context, we observed improvements in the reporting of subgroup analyses of cardiovascular randomised clinical trials. Nonetheless, critical shortcomings, such as inconsistent reporting of the implementation and insufficient pre-specification, persist.

Dataset Information

Genotype-based clinical trials in cardiovascular disease.

Publications

Genotype-based clinical trials in cardiovascular disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets