166 resultados para CLINICAL TRIALS
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES:
To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.
METHODS:
The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.
RESULTS:
The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.
CONCLUSIONS:
The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.
DESIGN:
Literature review and analysis.
METHOD:
We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.
RESULTS:
Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS:
Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.
Resumo:
The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.
Resumo:
Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.
Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.
Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).
Resumo:
Purpose: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials.
Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated.
Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%).
Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.
Resumo:
Background: In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Glaucoma is a chronic eye disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. A variety of outcomes has been used and reported in glaucoma RCTs.
Objectives: The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma RCTs between January 2006 and March 2012.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted using standard methodology. We searched for RCTs in glaucoma published in English with no restrictions on the population type or size, or applied interventions. All clinical outcomes were included. Patient-reported, pharmacokinetic and economic outcomes were excluded.
Results: The search strategy identified 4288 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Amongst the IOPrelated measures, the most commonly used was mean IOP (n=143, 15% of all measures). Safety outcomes were commonly reported, in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were utilized in 38 RCTs (16%).
Conclusions: There is a large variability in clinical outcomes used for glaucoma RCTs and in the way each outcome is reported. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.
Resumo:
The discovery of somatic mutations, primarily JAK2V617F and CALR, in classic BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) has generated interest in the development of molecularly targeted therapies, whose accurate assessment requires a standardized framework. A working group, comprised of members from European LeukemiaNet (ELN) and International Working Group for MPN Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT), prepared consensus-based recommendations regarding trial design, patient selection and definition of relevant end points. Accordingly, a response able to capture the long-term effect of the drug should be selected as the end point of phase II trials aimed at developing new drugs for MPNs. A time-to-event, such as overall survival, or progression-free survival or both, as co-primary end points, should measure efficacy in phase III studies. New drugs should be tested for preventing disease progression in myelofibrosis patients with early disease in randomized studies, and a time to event, such as progression-free or event-free survival should be the primary end point. Phase III trials aimed at preventing vascular events in polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia should be based on a selection of the target population based on new prognostic factors, including JAK2 mutation. In conclusion, we recommended a format for clinical trials in MPNs that facilitates communication between academic investigators, regulatory agencies and drug companies.
Resumo:
The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.
Resumo:
Light and photosensitizer-mediated killing of many pathogens, termed photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy (PACT), has been extensively investigated in vitro. A wide range of organisms from the Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus to the Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been proven to be susceptible to PACT. Multidrug-resistant strains are just as susceptible to this treatment as their naive counterparts. Both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses have demonstrated susceptibility in vitro, in addition to fungi and protozoa. Significantly, however, no clinical treatments based on PACT are currently licensed. This paper provides a comprehensive review of work carried out to date on delivery of photosensitizers for use in PACT, including topical, intranasal and oral/buccal delivery, as well as targeted delivery. We have also reviewed photo-antimicrobial surfaces. It is hoped that, through a rational approach to formulation design and subsequent success in small-scale clinical trials, more widespread use will be made of PACT in the clinic, to the benefit of patients worldwide. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
The number of clinical trials reports is increasing rapidly due to a large number of clinical trials being conducted; it, therefore, raises an urgent need to utilize the clinical knowledge contained in the clinical trials reports. In this paper, we focus on the qualitative knowledge instead of quantitative knowledge. More precisely, we aim to model and reason with the qualitative comparison (QC for short) relations which consider qualitatively how strongly one drug/therapy is preferred to another in a clinical point of view. To this end, first, we formalize the QC relations, introduce the notions of QC language, QC base, and QC profile; second, we propose a set of induction rules for the QC relations and provide grading interpretations for the QC bases and show how to determine whether a QC base is consistent. Furthermore, when a QC base is inconsistent, we analyze how to measure inconsistencies among QC bases, and we propose different approaches to merging multiple QC bases. Finally, a case study on lowering intraocular pressure is conducted to illustrate our approaches.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: In 1999, 270,000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (
Resumo:
PURPOSE The appropriate selection of patients for early clinical trials presents a major challenge. Previous analyses focusing on this problem were limited by small size and by interpractice heterogeneity. This study aims to define prognostic factors to guide risk-benefit assessments by using a large patient database from multiple phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected from 2,182 eligible patients treated in phase I trials between 2005 and 2007 in 14 European institutions. We derived and validated independent prognostic factors for 90-day mortality by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results The 90-day mortality was 16.5% with a drug-related death rate of 0.4%. Trial discontinuation within 3 weeks occurred in 14% of patients primarily because of disease progression. Eight different prognostic variables for 90-day mortality were validated: performance status (PS), albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, number of metastatic sites, clinical tumor growth rate, lymphocytes, and WBC. Two different models of prognostic scores for 90-day mortality were generated by using these factors, including or excluding PS; both achieved specificities of more than 85% and sensitivities of approximately 50% when using a score cutoff of 5 or higher. These models were not superior to the previously published Royal Marsden Hospital score in their ability to predict 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION Patient selection using any of these prognostic scores will reduce non-drug-related 90-day mortality among patients enrolled in phase I trials by 50%. However, this can be achieved only by an overall reduction in recruitment to phase I studies of 20%, more than half of whom would in fact have survived beyond 90 days.
Resumo:
Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness. It is a multifactorial condition, the risk factors for which are increasingly well defined from large-scale epidemiological studies. One risk factor that remains controversial is the presence of diabetes. It has been proposed that diabetic eyes are at greater risk of injury from external stressors, such as elevated intraocular pressure. Alternatively, diabetes may cause ganglion cell loss, which becomes additive to a glaucomatous ganglion cell injury. Several clinical trials have considered whether a link exists between diabetes and glaucoma. In this review, we outline these studies and consider the causes for their lack of concordant findings. We also review the biochemical and cellular similarities between the two conditions. Moreover, we review the available literature that attempts to answer the question of whether the presence of diabetes increases the risk of developing glaucoma. At present, laboratory studies provide robust evidence for an association between diabetes and glaucoma.
