Dataset Information

Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite careful planning, changes to some aspects of an ongoing randomised clinical trial (RCT), with a fixed design, may be warranted. We sought to elucidate the distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate changes to serve as a guide for less experienced clinical trialists and other stakeholders. METHODS:Using data from a large trial of statin therapy for secondary prevention, we generated a set of simulated trial datasets under the null hypothesis (H0) and a set under an alternative hypothesis (H1). Through analysis of these simulated trials, we assessed the performance of the strategy of changing aspects of the design/analysis with knowledge of treatment allocation (illegitimate) versus the strategy of making changes without knowledge of treatment allocation (legitimate). Performance was assessed using the type 1 error, as well as measures of absolute and relative bias in the treatment effect. RESULTS:Illegitimate changes led to a relative bias of 61% under H1, and a type 1 error rate under H0 of 23%-well in excess of the 5% significance level targeted. Legitimate changes produced unbiased estimates under H1 and did not inflate the type 1 error rate under H0. CONCLUSIONS:Changes to pre-specified aspects of the design and analysis of an ongoing RCT may be a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances. Such changes risk introducing a bias if undertaken with knowledge of treatment allocation. Legitimate changes need to be adequately documented to provide assurance to all stakeholders of their validity.

SUBMITTER: Coskinas X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7268339 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

Coskinas Xanthi X Simes John J Schou Manjula M Martin Andrew James AJ

Trials 20200603 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite careful planning, changes to some aspects of an ongoing randomised clinical trial (RCT), with a fixed design, may be warranted. We sought to elucidate the distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate changes to serve as a guide for less experienced clinical trialists and other stakeholders.<h4>Methods</h4>Using data from a large trial of statin therapy for secondary prevention, we generated a set of simulated trial datasets under the null hypothesis (H0) and a se ...[more]

PMID: 32493444

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrial design plays a key role in clinical trials. Traditional group sequential design has been used in cardiovascular clinical trials over decades as the trials can potentially be stopped early, therefore, it can reduce pre-planned sample size and trial resources. In contrast, trials with adoptive designs provide greater flexibility and are more efficient due to the ability to modify trial design according to the interim analysis results. In this systematic review, we aim to explore characteristics of adaptive and traditional group sequential trials in practice and to gain an understanding how these trial designs are currently being reported in cardiology.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched from January 1980 to June 2022. Randomised controlled phase 2/3 trials with either adaptive or traditional group sequential design in patients with cardiovascular disease were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present the collected data.ResultsOf 456 articles found in the initial search, 56 were identified including 43 (76.8%) trials with traditional group sequential design and 13 (23.2%) with adaptive. Most trials were large, multicentre, led by the USA (50%) and Europe (28.6%), and were funded by companies (78.6%). For trials with group sequential design, frequency of interim analyses was determined mainly by the number of events (47%). 67% of the trials stopped early, in which 14 (32.6%) were due to efficacy, and 5 (11.6%) for futility. The commonly used stopping rule to terminate trials was O'Brien- Fleming-type alpha spending function (10 (23.3%)). For trials with adaptive designs, 54% of the trials stopped early, in which 4 (30.8%) were due to futility, and 2 (15.4%) for efficacy. Sample size re-estimation was commonly used (8 (61.5%)). In 69% of the trials, simulation including Bayesian approach was used to define the statistical stopping rules. The adaptive designs have been increasingly used (from 0 to 1999 to 38.6% after 2015 amongst adaptive trials). 25% of the trials reported "adaptive" in abstract or title of the studies.ConclusionsThe application of adaptive trials is increasingly popular in cardiovascular clinical trials. The reporting of adaptive design needs improving.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:Four randomized placebo-controlled efficacy trials of a candidate vaccine or passively infused monoclonal antibody for prevention of HIV-1 infection are underway (HVTN 702 in South African men and women; HVTN 705 in sub-Saharan African women; HVTN 703/HPTN 081 in sub-Saharan African women; HVTN 704/HPTN 085 in U.S., Peruvian, Brazilian, and Swiss men or transgender persons who have sex with men). Several challenges are posed to the optimal design of the sequel efficacy trials, including: (1) how to account for the evolving mosaic of effective prevention interventions that may be part of the trial design or standard of prevention; (2) how to define viable and optimal sequel trial designs depending on the primary efficacy results and secondary "correlates of protection" results of each of the ongoing trials; and (3) how to define the primary objective of sequel efficacy trials if HIV-1 incidence is expected to be very low in all study arms such that a standard trial design has a steep opportunity cost. After summarizing the ongoing trials, I discuss statistical science considerations for sequel efficacy trial designs, both generally and specifically to each trial listed above. One conclusion is that the results of "correlates of protection" analyses, which ascertain how different host immunological markers and HIV-1 viral features impact HIV-1 risk and prevention efficacy, have an important influence on sequel trial design. This influence is especially relevant for the monoclonal antibody trials because of the focused pre-trial hypothesis that potency and coverage of serum neutralization constitutes a surrogate endpoint for HIV-1 infection. Another conclusion is that while assessing prevention efficacy against a counterfactual placebo group is fraught with risks for bias, such analysis is nonetheless important and study designs coupled with analysis methods should be developed to optimize such inferences. I draw a parallel with non-inferiority designs, which are fraught with risks given the necessity of making unverifiable assumptions for interpreting results, but nevertheless have been accepted when a superiority design is not possible and a rigorous/conservative non-inferiority margin is used. In a similar way, counterfactual placebo group efficacy analysis should use rigorous/conservative inference techniques that formally build in a rigorous/conservative margin to potential biases that could occur due to departures from unverifiable assumptions. Because reliability of this approach would require new techniques for verifying that the study cohort experienced substantial exposure to HIV-1, currently it may be appropriate as a secondary objective but not as a primary objective.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Dataset Information

Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

Publications

Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets