Publications
288 results found
Antcliffe DB, Santhakumaran S, Orme RML, et al., 2019, Levosimendan in septic shock in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction: a subgroup analysis of the LeoPARDS randomised trial, Intensive Care Medicine, Vol: 45, Pages: 1392-1400, ISSN: 0342-4642
PurposeMyocardial dysfunction is common in sepsis but optimal treatment strategies are unclear. The inodilator, levosimendan was suggested as a possible therapy; however, the levosimendan to prevent acute organ dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial found it to have no benefit in reducing organ dysfunction in septic shock. In this study we evaluated the effects of levosimendan in patients with and without biochemical cardiac dysfunction and examined its non-inotropic effects.MethodsTwo cardiac biomarkers, troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and five inflammatory mediators were measured in plasma from patients recruited to the LeoPARDS trial at baseline and over the first 6 days. Mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and 28-day mortality were compared between patients with normal and raised cTnI and NT-proBNP values, and between patients above and below median values.ResultsLevosimendan produced no benefit in SOFA score or 28-day mortality in patients with cardiac dysfunction. There was a statistically significant treatment by subgroup interaction (p = 0.04) in patients with NT-proBNP above or below the median value. Those with NT-proBNP values above the median receiving levosimendan had higher SOFA scores than those receiving placebo (mean daily total SOFA score 7.64 (4.41) vs 6.09 (3.88), mean difference 1.55, 95% CI 0.43–2.68). Levosimendan had no effect on the rate of decline of inflammatory biomarkers.ConclusionAdding levosimendan to standard care in septic shock was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction nor lower mortality in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction.
Smyth AR, Hewer LS, Brown M, et al., 2019, INTRAVENOUS VS ORAL ANTIBIOTICS FOR ERADICATION OF <i>PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA</i> IN CYSTIC FIBROSIS (TORPEDO-CF): A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL, Publisher: WILEY, Pages: S302-S302, ISSN: 8755-6863
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 4
Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, et al., 2019, Practical help for specifying the target difference in sample size calculations for RCTs: the DELTA<SUP>2</SUP> five-stage study, including a workshop, HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, Vol: 23, Pages: 1-+, ISSN: 1366-5278
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 10
Modi N, Ashby D, Battersby C, et al., 2019, Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme, Programme Grants for Applied Research, Vol: 7, Pages: 1-396, ISSN: 2050-4322
BackgroundClinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year.Objectives(1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research.DesignSix inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts.SettingNHS neonatal units.ParticipantsNeonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units.InterventionsIn workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units.Data sourcesData were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units.Main outcome measuresWe created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (
Ashby D, 2019, Pigeonholes and mustard seeds: growing capacity to use data for society, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, ISSN: 0964-1998
Hallgreen CE, Mt-Isa S, Waddingham E, et al., 2019, Medical benefit-risk assessment: Creating the value-tree an experience from six case studies, Publisher: WILEY, Pages: 467-467, ISSN: 1053-8569
Nagendran M, Russell JA, Brett S, et al., 2019, Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, Intensive Care Medicine, Vol: 45, Pages: 844-855, ISSN: 0342-4642
PurposeWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups.MethodsOur pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42017071698. We identified randomised clinical trials up to January 2019 investigating vasopressin therapy versus any other vasoactive comparator in adults with septic shock. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed as well as one-stage regression models with single treatment covariate interactions for subgroup analyses.ResultsFour trials were included with a total of 1453 patients. For the primary outcomes, there was no effect of vasopressin on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.86–1.12] or serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.26). Vasopressin led to more digital ischaemia [absolute risk difference (ARD) 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3%–3.2%] but fewer arrhythmias (ARD − 2.8%, 95% CI − 0.2% to − 5.3%). Mesenteric ischaemia and acute coronary syndrome events were similar between groups. Vasopressin reduced the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74–0.99), but this finding was not robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no statistically significant interactions in the pre-defined subgroups (baseline kidney injury severity, baseline lactate, baseline norepinephrine requirement and time to study inclusion).ConclusionsVasopressin therapy in septic shock had no effect on 28-day mortality although the confidence intervals are wide. It appears safe but with a different side effect profile from norepinephrine. The finding on reduced RRT should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should focus on long-term outcomes in select patient groups as well as incorporating cost effectiveness analyses regarding possible reduced RRT use.
Antcliffe D, Burnham K, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2019, Transcriptomic signatures in sepsis and a differential response to steroids: from the VANISH randomized trial, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol: 199, Pages: 980-986, ISSN: 1073-449X
Rationale: There remains uncertainty about the role of corticosteroids in sepsis with clear beneficial effects on shock duration but conflicting survival effects. Two transcriptomic sepsis response signatures (SRS) have been identified. SRS1 is relatively immunosuppressed whilst SRS2 is relatively immunocompetent. Objectives: We aimed to categorized patients based on SRS endotypes to determine if these profiles influenced response to either norepinephrine or vasopressin, or to corticosteroids in septic shock. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed of a double-blind randomized clinical trial in septic shock (VANISH). Patients were included within 6 hours of onset of shock and were randomized to receive norepinephrine or vasopressin followed by hydrocortisone or placebo. Genome-wide gene expression profiling was performed and SRS endotype was determined using a previously established model using seven discriminant genes. Measurements and Main Results: Samples were available from 176 patients, 83 SRS1 and 93 SRS2. There was no significant interaction between SRS group and vasopressor assignment (p=0·50). However, there was an interaction between assignment to hydrocortisone or placebo, and SRS endotype (p=0·02). Hydrocortisone use was associated with increased mortality in those with an SRS2 phenotype (OR 7·9, 95%CI 1·6-39·9). Conclusions: Transcriptomic profile at onset of septic shock was associated with response to corticosteroids. Those with the immuno-competent SRS2 endotype had significantly higher mortality when given corticosteroids compared to placebo. Clinical trial registration available at www.isrctn.com, ID ISRCTN20769191.
Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, et al., 2018, DELTA(2) guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial, Trials, Vol: 19, ISSN: 1745-6215
BackgroundA key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist.The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journalsMethodsThe DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5).Results and DiscussionThe key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.
Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, et al., 2018, DELTA(2) guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, Vol: 363, ISSN: 1756-1833
Gordon AC, Santhakumaran S, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2018, Levosimendan to prevent acute organ dysfunction in sepsis: the LeoPARDS RCT, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, Vol: 5, Pages: 1-124, ISSN: 2050-4365
Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis: the LeoPARDS Randomised Controlled Trial Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis: the LeoPARDS Randomised Controlled Trial
Dunning J, Blankley S, Hoang LT, et al., 2018, Progression of whole-blood transcriptional signatures from interferon-induced to neutrophil-associated patterns in severe influenza, Nature Immunology, Vol: 19, Pages: 625-635, ISSN: 1529-2916
Transcriptional profiles and host-response biomarkers are used increasingly to investigate the severity, subtype and pathogenesis of disease. We now describe whole-blood mRNA signatures and concentrations of local and systemic immunological mediators in 131 adults hospitalized with influenza, from whom extensive clinical and investigational data were obtained by MOSAIC investigators. Signatures reflective of interferon-related antiviral pathways were common up to day 4 of symptoms in patients who did not require mechanical ventilator support; in those who needed mechanical ventilation, an inflammatory, activated-neutrophil and cell-stress or death (‘bacterial’) pattern was seen, even early in disease. Identifiable bacterial co-infection was not necessary for this ‘bacterial’ signature but was able to enhance its development while attenuating the early ‘viral’ signature. Our findings emphasize the importance of timing and severity in the interpretation of host responses to acute viral infection and identify specific patterns of immune-system activation that might enable the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools for severe influenza.
Mora-Peris B, Bouliotis G, Kulasegaram R, et al., 2018, Changes in cerebral function parameters with maraviroc intensified antiretroviral therapy in treatment naïve HIV-Positive individuals; A randomised controlled study, AIDS, Vol: 32, Pages: 1007-1015, ISSN: 0269-9370
Background: Maraviroc-intensified antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with cognitive benefits.Methods: Therapy-naive, cognitively asymptomatic, HIV-positive individuals were randomly allocated on a 1 : 1 basis to standard ART (Arm1: tenofovir-emtricitabine and atazanavir/ritonavir) or maraviroc intensified ART (Arm2: abacavir-lamivudine and darunavir/ritonavir/maraviroc). Over 48 weeks, detailed assessments of cognitive function tests were undertaken and cerebral metabolites measured using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Our primary endpoint was mean change in cognitive function across treatment arms with factors associated with cognitive function changes also assessed.Results: Of 60 individuals randomized (30 Arm1 and 30 Arm2), 58 were men and 44 of white ethnicity. Treatment groups had similar disease characteristics including overall mean (SD) baseline CD4+ cell count 428 (209) and 414 (229) cells/μl, Arms1 and 2, respectively. At week 48, plasma HIV RNA was less than 50 copies/ml in 55 of 56 of those completing study procedures. Cognitive function improved over 48 weeks [mean change z-score (SD) 0.16 (0.09) Arm1 and 0.25 (0.08) Arm2, P = 0.96 for differences between study arms]. A greater increase in frontal grey matter N-acetyl aspartate/creatine ratio was observed in Arm1 [ratio change of 0.071 (SD 0.16)] versus Arm2 [change −0.097 (SD 0.18), P = 0.009], although this was not associated with changes in cognitive function (P = 0.17).Conclusion: Maraviroc-intensified ART had no demonstrable benefit on cognitive function in individuals initiating ART. Greater improvement in neuronal metabolites (N-acetyl aspartate/creatine) was observed with standard ART. Future work should focus on maraviroc-intensified ART in individuals with cognitive impairment.
Santhakumaran S, Gray D, Statnikov Y, et al., 2017, Survival of very preterm infants admitted to neonatal care in England 2008-2014: time trends and regional variation, Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition, Vol: 103, Pages: F208--F215, ISSN: 1468-2052
ObjectiveTo analyse survival trends and regional variation for very preterm infants admitted to neonatal care.SettingAll neonatal units in EnglandPatientsInfants born at 22+0-31+6 weeks+days gestational age (GA) over 2008-2014 and admitted to neonatal care; published data for admitted infants 22+0-25+6 weeks+days GA in 1995 and 2006, and for live births at 22+0-31+6 weeks+days GA in 2013.MethodsWe obtained data from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). We used logistic regression to model survival probability with birth-weight, GA, sex, antenatal steroid exposure, and multiple birth included in the risk-adjustment model, and calculated Average Percentage Change (APC) for trends using joinpoint regression. We evaluated survival over a 20-year period for infants <26 weeks GA using additional published data from the EPICure studies.ResultsWe identified 50,112 eligible infants. There was an increase in survival over 2008-2014 (2008 88.0%, 2014 91.3%; adjusted APC 0.46% (95% Confidence Interval 0.30 to 0.62) p<0.001). The greatest improvement was at 22+0-23+6 weeks (APC 6.03% (2.47 to 3.53) p=0.002). Improvement largely occurred in London and South of England (APC: London 1.26% (0.60 to 1.96); South of England 1.09% (0.36 to 1.82); Midlands and East of England 0.15%(-0.56 to 0.86); North of England 0.26% (-0.54 to 1.07)). Survival at the earliest gestations improved at a similar rate over 1995-2014 (22+0-25+6 weeks, APC 2.73% (2.35 to 3.12) p-value for change=0.25). ConclusionsContinued national improvement in the survival of very preterm admissions masks important regional variation. Timely assessment of preterm survival is feasible using electronic records.
quinn K, Traboni C, Dily Penchala S, et al., 2017, A first-in-human study of the novel HIV-fusion inhibitor C34-PEG4-Chol., Scientific Reports, Vol: 7, ISSN: 2045-2322
Abstract:Long-acting injectable antiretroviral (LA-ARV) drugs with low toxicity profiles and propensity for drug-drug interactions are a goal for future ARV regimens. C34-PEG4-Chol is a novel cholesterol tagged LA HIV-fusion-inhibitor (FI). We assessed pre-clinical toxicology and first-in-human administration of C34-PEG4-Chol. Pre-clinical toxicology was conducted in 2 species. HIV-positive men were randomised to a single subcutaneous dose of C34-PEG4-Chol at incrementing doses or placebo. Detailed clinical (including injection site reaction (ISR) grading), plasma pharmacokinetic (time-to-minimum-effective-concentration (MEC, 25ng/mL) and pharmacodynamic (plasma HIV RNA) parameters were assessed. In both mice and dogs, no-observed-adverse effect level (NOAEL) was observed at a 12 mg/kg/dose after two weeks. Of 5 men enrolled, 3 received active drug (10mg, 10mg and 20mg). In 2 individuals grade 3 ISR occurred and the study was halted. Both ISR emerged within 12 hours of active drug dosing. No systemic toxicities were observed. The time-to-MEC was > 72 and >96 hours after 10 and 20 mg dose, respectively, and mean change in HIV RNA was -0.9 log10 copies/mL. These human pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data, although limited to 3 subjects, of C34-PEG-4-Chol suggest continuing evaluation of this agent as a LA-ARV. However, alternative administration routes must be explored.
Sydes MR, Ashby D, 2017, Data Authorship as an Incentive to Data Sharing, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Vol: 377, Pages: 402-402, ISSN: 0028-4793
Saunders P, Tsipouri V, Keir GJ, et al., 2017, Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for the treatment of connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (RECITAL): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, TRIALS, Vol: 18, ISSN: 1745-6215
Background:Interstitial lung disease (ILD) frequently complicates systemic autoimmune disorders resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. The connective tissue diseases (CTDs) most frequently resulting in ILD include: systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myositis (including dermatomyositis, polymyositis and anti-synthetase syndrome) and mixed connective tissue disease. Despite the development, over the last two decades, of a range of biological therapies which have resulted in significant improvements in the treatment of the systemic manifestations of CTD, the management of CTD-associated ILD has changed little. At present there are no approved therapies for CTD-ILD. Following trials in scleroderma-ILD, cyclophosphamide is the accepted standard of care for individuals with severe or progressive CTD-related ILD. Observational studies have suggested that the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, is an effective rescue therapy in the treatment of refractory CTD-ILD. However, before now, there have been no randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of rituximab in this treatment population.Methods/design:RECITAL is a UK, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme of the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. The trial will compare rituximab 1 g given intravenously, twice at an interval of 2 weeks, with intravenously administered cyclophosphamide given monthly at a dose of 600 mg/m2 body surface area in individuals with ILD due to systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myositis (including anti-synthetase syndrome) or mixed connective tissue disease. A total of 116 individuals will be randomised 1:1 to each of the two treatment arms, with stratification based on underlying CTD, and will be followed for a total of 48 weeks from first dose. The primary endpoint for the study will be change in forced vital capacity
Mason A, Winston A, Ashby D, 2017, Developing a Bayesian adaptive design for a phase I clinical trial: a case study for a novel HIV treatment, Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, ISSN: 1745-6215
Martyn M, Liu X, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, et al., 2017, Issues with over-fitting in predictive models produced for stratified medicine: a case study on an ovarian cancer trial, Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, ISSN: 1745-6215
Santhakumaran S, Mason AJ, Gordon AC, et al., 2017, Bayesian methods for informative missingness in longitudinal intensive care data, 3rd International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference, Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, ISSN: 1745-6215
Embleton A, Ashby D, Flemyng E, et al., 2017, If a tree falls in a forest: abstract view statistics as a measure of research impact, Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, ISSN: 1745-6215
Tsipouri V, Saunders P, Keir GJ, et al., 2017, Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for the treatment of connective tissue disease associated interstitial lung disease (RECITAL): a randomised controlled trial, Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, ISSN: 1745-6215
INFANT Collaborative Group, 2017, Computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate during labour (INFANT): a randomised controlled trial., Lancet, Vol: 389, Pages: 1719-1729
BACKGROUND: Continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is widely used during labour, and computerised interpretation could increase its usefulness. We aimed to establish whether the addition of decision-support software to assist in the interpretation of cardiotocographs affected the number of poor neonatal outcomes. METHODS: In this unmasked randomised controlled trial, we recruited women in labour aged 16 years or older having continuous electronic fetal monitoring, with a singleton or twin pregnancy, and at 35 weeks' gestation or more at 24 maternity units in the UK and Ireland. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to decision support with the INFANT system or no decision support via a computer-generated stratified block randomisation schedule. The primary outcomes were poor neonatal outcome (intrapartum stillbirth or early neonatal death excluding lethal congenital anomalies, or neonatal encephalopathy, admission to the neonatal unit within 24 h for ≥48 h with evidence of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness, or encephalopathy with evidence of compromise at birth), and developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is completed and is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number 98680152. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2013, 47 062 women were randomly assigned (23 515 in the decision-support group and 23 547 in the no-decision-support group) and 46 042 were analysed (22 987 in the decision-support group and 23 055 in the no-decision-support group). We noted no difference in the incidence of poor neonatal outcome between the groups-172 (0·7%) babies in the decision-support group compared with 171 (0·7%) babies in the no-decision-support group (adjusted risk ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·82-1·25). At 2 years, no significant differences were noted in terms of developmental assessment. INTERPRETATION: Use of computerised interpretation of
Achana F, Petrou S, Khan K, et al., 2017, A methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness outcomes estimated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations., European Journal of Health Economics, Vol: 19, Pages: 75-86, ISSN: 1618-7601
A new methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness endpoints generated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations is proposed. The framework can be used to validate cost-effectiveness endpoints generated from routine data sources when comparable data is available directly from trial case report forms or from another source. We illustrate application of the framework using data from a recent trial-based economic evaluation of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve strain BBG administered to babies less than 31 weeks of gestation. Cost-effectiveness endpoints are compared using two sources of information; trial case report forms and data extracted from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD), a clinical database created through collaborative efforts of UK neonatal services. Focusing on mean incremental net benefits at £30,000 per episode of sepsis averted, the study revealed no evidence of discrepancy between the data sources (two-sided p values >0.4), low probability estimates of miscoverage (ranging from 0.039 to 0.060) and concordance correlation coefficients greater than 0.86. We conclude that the NNRD could potentially serve as a reliable source of data for future trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions. We also discuss the potential implications of increasing opportunity to utilize routinely available data for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations.
Bird SM, Strang J, Ashby D, et al., 2017, External data required timely response by the Trial Steering-Data Monitoring Committee for the NALoxone InVEstigation (N-ALIVE) pilot trial, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, Vol: 5, Pages: 100-106, ISSN: 2451-8654
The prison-based N-ALIVE pilot trial had undertaken to notify the Research Ethics Committee and participantsif we had reason to believe that the N-ALIVE pilot trial would not proceed to the main trial. Inthis paper, we describe how external data for the third year of before/after evaluation from Scotland'sNational Naloxone Programme, a related public health policy, were anticipated by eliciting prior opinionabout the Scottish results in the month prior to their release as official statistics. We summarise howdeliberations by the N-ALIVE Trial Steering-Data Monitoring Committee (TS-DMC) on N-ALIVE's owninterim data, together with those on naloxone-on-release (NOR) from Scotland, led to the decision tocease randomization in the N-ALIVE pilot trial and recommend to local Principal Investigators that NORbe offered to already-randomized prisoners who had not yet been released.
Wilhelm-Benartzi CS, Mt-Isa S, Fiorentino F, et al., 2016, Challenges and methodology in the incorporation of biomarkers in cancer clinical trials., Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, Vol: 110, Pages: 49-61, ISSN: 1040-8428
Biomarkers can be used to establish more homogeneous groups using the genetic makeup of the tumour to inform the selection of treatment for each individual patient. However, proper preclinical work and stringent validation are needed before taking forward biomarkers into confirmatory studies. Despite the challenges, incorporation of biomarkers into clinical trials could better target appropriate patients, and potentially be lifesaving. The authors conducted a systematic review to describe marker-based and adaptive design methodology for their integration in clinical trials, and to further describe the associated practical challenges. Studies published between 1990 to November 2015 were searched on PubMed. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed to identify relevant studies. Of the 4438 studies examined, 57 studies were included. The authors conclude that the proposed approaches may readily help researchers to design biomarker trials, but novel approaches are still needed.
Mason AJ, Gonzalez-Maffe J, Quinn K, et al., 2016, Developing a Bayesian adaptive design for a phase I clinical trial: a case study for a novel HIV treatment, Statistics in Medicine, Vol: 36, Pages: 754-771, ISSN: 1097-0258
The design of phase I studies is often challenging, because of limited evidence to inform study protocols. Adaptive designs are now well established in cancer but much less so in other clinical areas. A phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile and antiretroviral efficacy of C34-PEG4-Chol, a novel peptide fusion inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection, has been set up with Medical Research Council funding. During the study workup, Bayesian adaptive designs based on the continual reassessment method were compared with a more standard rule-based design, with the aim of choosing a design that would maximise the scientific information gained from the study. The process of specifying and evaluating the design options was time consuming and required the active involvement of all members of the trial's protocol development team. However, the effort was worthwhile as the originally proposed rule-based design has been replaced by a more efficient Bayesian adaptive design. While the outcome to be modelled, design details and evaluation criteria are trial specific, the principles behind their selection are general. This case study illustrates the steps required to establish a design in a novel context.
Bicknell CD, Kiru G, Falaschetti E, et al., 2016, An evaluation of the effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on the growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: A randomised placebo controlled trial (AARDVARK), European Heart Journal, Vol: 37, Pages: 3213-3221, ISSN: 1522-9645
Aims The AARDVARK (Aortic Aneurysmal Regression of Dilation: Value of ACE-Inhibition on RisK) trial investigated whether ACE-inhibition reduces small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) growth rate, independent of blood pressure (BP) lowering.Methods and results A three-arm, multi-centre, single-blind, and randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN51383267) was conducted in 14 hospitals in England. Subjects aged ≥55 years with AAA diameter 3.0–5.4 cm were randomized 1:1:1 to receive perindopril arginine 10 mg, or amlodipine 5 mg, or placebo and followed 3–6 monthly over 2 years. The primary outcome was aneurysm growth rate (based on external antero-posterior ultrasound measurements in the longitudinal plane), determined by multi-level modelling to provide maximum likelihood estimates. Two hundred and twenty-four subjects were randomized (2011–2013) to placebo (n = 79), perindopril (n = 73), or amlodipine (n = 72). Mean (SD) changes in mid-trial systolic BP (12 months) were 0.5 (14.3) mmHg, P = 0.78 compared with baseline, −9.5 (13.1) mmHg (P < 0.001), and −6.7 (12.0) mmHg (P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences in the modelled annual growth rates were apparent [1.68 mm (SE 0.2), 1.77 mm (0.2), and 1.81 mm (0.2), respectively]. The estimated difference in annual growth between the perindopril and placebo groups was 0.08 mm (CI −0.50, 0.65). Similar numbers of AAAs in each group reached 5.5 cm diameter and/or underwent elective surgery: 11 receiving placebo, 10 perindopril, and 11 amlodipine.Conclusion Small AAA growth rates were lower than anticipated, but there was no significant impact of perindopril compared with placebo or placebo and amlodipine, combined despite more effective BP lowering.
Johnston SL, Szigeti M, Cross M, et al., 2016, Azithromycin for acute exacerbations of asthma. The AZALEA randomized clinical trial, JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol: 176, Pages: 1630-1637, ISSN: 2168-6106
Importance Guidelines recommend against antibiotic use to treat asthma attacks. A study with telithromycin reported benefit, but adverse reactions limit its use.Objective To determine whether azithromycin added to standard care for asthma attacks in adults results in clinical benefit.Design, Setting, and Participants The Azithromycin Against Placebo in Exacerbations of Asthma (AZALEA) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, a United Kingdom–based multicenter study in adults requesting emergency care for acute asthma exacerbations, ran from September 2011 to April 2014. Adults with a history of asthma for more than 6 months were recruited within 48 hours of presentation to medical care with an acute deterioration in asthma control requiring a course of oral and/or systemic corticosteroids.Interventions Azithromycin 500 mg daily or matched placebo for 3 days.Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was diary card symptom score 10 days after randomization, with a hypothesized treatment effect size of −0.3. Secondary outcomes were diary card symptom score, quality-of-life questionnaires, and lung function changes, all between exacerbation and day 10, and time to a 50% reduction in symptom score.Results Of 4582 patients screened at 31 centers, 199 of a planned 380 were randomized within 48 hours of presentation. The major reason for nonrecruitment was receipt of antibiotics (2044 [44.6%] screened patients). Median time from presentation to drug administration was 22 hours (interquartile range, 14-28 hours). Exacerbation characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms and centers. The primary outcome asthma symptom scores were mean (SD), 4.14 (1.38) at exacerbation and 2.09 (1.71) at 10 days for the azithromycin group and 4.18 (1.48) and 2.20 (1.51) for the placebo group, respectively. Using multilevel modeling, there was no significant difference in symptom scores between azithromycin and placebo at day 10 (difference
Gordon AC, Perkins GD, Singer M, et al., 2016, Levosimendan for the prevention of acute organ dysfunction in sepsis, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol: 375, Pages: 1638-1648, ISSN: 0028-4793
BACKGROUNDLevosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other propertiesthat may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis.METHODSWe conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendanreduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patientswere randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of0.05 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placeboin addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily SequentialOrgan Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scoresfor each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severedysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality,time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.RESULTSThe trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFAscore between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs.6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.07 to 1.29;P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9%in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.5 to11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendangroup were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfullyweaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio,0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group thanin the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolutedifference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04).CONCLUSIONSThe addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was notassociated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosim
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.