Consensus on Outcome Measures for Glaucoma Effectiveness Trials: Results From a Delphi and Nominal Group Technique Approaches

PURPOSE: Comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across glaucoma trials can be problematic due to differences in definitions of outcomes. We sought to identify a key set of clinical outcomes and reach consensus on how best to measure them from the perspective of glaucoma experts.

METHODS: A 2-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. Round 1 involved 25 items identified from a systematic review. Round 2 was developed based on information gathered in round 1. A 10-point Likert scale was used to quantify importance and consensus of outcomes (7 outcomes) and ways of measuring them (44 measures). Experts were identified through 2 glaucoma societies membership-the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society and the European Glaucoma Society. A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) followed the Delphi process. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: A total of 65 participants completed round 1 out of 320; of whom 56 completed round 2 (86%). Agreement on the importance of outcomes was reached on 48/51 items (94%). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual field (VF), safety, and anatomic outcomes were classified as highly important. Regarding methods of measurement of IOP, "mean follow-up IOP" using Goldmann applanation tonometry achieved the highest importance, whereas for evaluating VFs "global index mean deviation/defect (MD)" and "rate of VF progression" were the most important. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was identified as highly important. The NGT results reached consensus on "change of IOP (mean of 3 consecutive measurements taken at fixed time of day) from baseline," change of VF-MD values (3 reliable VFs at baseline and follow-up visit) from baseline, and change of RNFL thickness (2 good quality OCT images) from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached among glaucoma experts on how best to measure IOP, VF, and anatomic outcomes in glaucoma randomized controlled trials.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge (www.trialforge.org) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.

This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.

General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.

Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

Challenges to undertaking randomised trials with looked after children in social care settings

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed as the gold standard for assessing effectiveness in health research; however many researchers and practitioners believe that RCTs are inappropriate and un-doable in social care settings, particularly in relation to looked after children. The aim of this article is to describe the challenges faced in conducting a pilot study and phase II RCT of a peer mentoring intervention to reduce teenage pregnancy in looked after children in a social care setting.

Methods: Interviews were undertaken with social care professionals and looked after children, and a survey conducted with looked after children, to establish the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research design.

Results: Barriers to recruitment and in managing the intervention were identified, including social workers acting as informal gatekeepers; social workers concerns and misconceptions about the recruitment criteria and the need for and purpose of randomisation; resource limitations, which made it difficult to prioritise research over other demands on their time and difficulties in engaging and retaining looked after children in the study.

Conclusions: The relative absence of a research infrastructure and culture in social care and the lack of research support funding available for social care agencies, compared to health organisations, has implications for increasing evidence-based practice in social care settings, particularly in this very vulnerable group of young people.

Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: selection of outcomes and sample size calculation

PurposeThe selection of suitable outcomes and sample size calculation are critical factors in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The goal of this study was to identify the range of outcomes and information on sample size calculation in RCTs on geographic atrophy (GA).MethodsWe carried out a systematic review of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, www.controlled-trials.com, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer collected data and the second reviewer appraised 10% of collected data. We scanned references lists of selected papers to include other relevant RCTs.ResultsLiterature and registry search identified 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. From a total of 177 RCTs on all types of AMD, 23 RCTs on GA were included. Eighty-one clinical outcomes were identified. Visual acuity (VA) was the most frequently used outcome, presented in 18 out of 23 RCTs and followed by the measures of lesion area. For sample size analysis, 8 GA RCTs were included. None of them provided sufficient Information on sample size calculations.ConclusionsThis systematic review illustrates a lack of standardisation in terms of outcome reporting in GA trials and issues regarding sample size calculation. These limitations significantly hamper attempts to compare outcomes across studies and also perform meta-analyses.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates have profound effects on bone physiology, and could modify the process of metastasis. We undertook collaborative meta-analyses to clarify the risks and benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in breast cancer.

METHODS: We sought individual patient data from all unconfounded trials in early breast cancer that randomised between bisphosphonate and control. Primary outcomes were recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer mortality. Primary subgroup investigations were site of first distant recurrence (bone or other), menopausal status (postmenopausal [combining natural and artificial] or not), and bisphosphonate class (aminobisphosphonate [eg, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate] or other [ie, clodronate]). Intention-to-treat log-rank methods yielded bisphosphonate versus control first-event rate ratios (RRs).

FINDINGS: We received data on 18 766 women (18 206 [97%] in trials of 2-5 years of bisphosphonate) with median follow-up 5·6 woman-years, 3453 first recurrences, and 2106 subsequent deaths. Overall, the reductions in recurrence (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·87-1·01; 2p=0·08), distant recurrence (0·92, 0·85-0·99; 2p=0·03), and breast cancer mortality (0·91, 0·83-0·99; 2p=0·04) were of only borderline significance, but the reduction in bone recurrence was more definite (0·83, 0·73-0·94; 2p=0·004). Among premenopausal women, treatment had no apparent effect on any outcome, but among 11 767 postmenopausal women it produced highly significant reductions in recurrence (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78-0·94; 2p=0·002), distant recurrence (0·82, 0·74-0·92; 2p=0·0003), bone recurrence (0·72, 0·60-0·86; 2p=0·0002), and breast cancer mortality (0·82, 0·73-0·93; 2p=0·002). Even for bone recurrence, however, the heterogeneity of benefit was barely significant by menopausal status (2p=0·06 for trend with menopausal status) or age (2p=0·03), and it was non-significant by bisphosphonate class, treatment schedule, oestrogen receptor status, nodes, tumour grade, or concomitant chemotherapy. No differences were seen in non-breast cancer mortality. Bone fractures were reduced (RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·97; 2p=0·02).

INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival, but there is definite benefit only in women who were postmenopausal when treatment began.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.

Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials

BACKGROUND: The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain.

METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31 920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs).

FINDINGS: In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·64, 95% CI 0·52-0·78) and 2-4 (RR 0·80, 0·68-0·93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12·1% vs 14·2%; RR 0·85, 0·75-0·96; 2p=0·009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·74, 0·62-0·89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2-4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0·90, 0·81-0·99; 2p=0·045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0·89, 0·78-1·03; 2p=0·11). In the comparison of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2-4 (RR 0·56, 0·46-0·67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8·7% vs 10·1%; 2p=0·015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0·70, 0·64-0·77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0·93, 0·86-1·01; 2p=0·08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0·79, 0·67-0·92), and subsequently (RR 0·89, 0·81-0·99), and for all periods combined (RR 0·86, 0·80-0·94; 2p=0·0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0·88, 0·82-0·94; 2p=0·0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0·4% vs 1·2%; RR 0·33, 0·21-0·51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8·2% vs 5·5%; RR 1·42, 1·28-1·57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar.

INTERPRETATION: Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments differ, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use

Jayne Tierney and colleagues offer guidance on how to spot a well-designed and well-conducted individual participant data meta-analysis.

Summary Points 

• Systematic reviews are most commonly based on aggregate data extracted from publications or obtained from trial investigators. 

• Systematic reviews involving the central collection and analysis of individual participant data (IPD) usually are larger-scale, international, collaborative projects that can bring about substantial improvements to the quantity and quality of data, give greater scope in the analyses, and provide more detailed and robust results. 

• The process of collecting, checking, and analysing IPD is more complex than for aggregate data, and not all IPD meta-analyses are done to the same standard, making it difficult for researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, and publishers to judge their quality. 

• Following our step-by-step guide will help reviewers and users of IPD meta-analyses to understand them better and recognise those that are well designed and conducted and so help ensure that policy, practice, and research are informed by robust evidence about the effects of interventions.

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

Learning from the QUEST multicentre feasibility randomization trials in breast reconstruction after mastectomy

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction aims to improve health-related quality of life after mastectomy. However, evidence guiding patients and surgeons in shared decision-making concerning the optimal type or timing of surgery is lacking.

METHODS: QUEST comprised two parallel feasibility phase III randomized multicentre trials to assess the impact of the type and timing of latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction on health-related quality of life when postmastectomy radiotherapy is unlikely (QUEST A) or highly probable (QUEST B). The primary endpoint for the feasibility phase was the proportion of women who accepted randomization, and it would be considered feasible if patient acceptability rates exceeded 25 per cent of women approached. A companion QUEST Perspectives Study (QPS) of patients (both accepting and declining trial participation) and healthcare professionals assessed trial acceptability.

RESULTS: The QUEST trials opened in 15 UK centres. After 18 months of recruitment, 17 patients were randomized to QUEST A and eight to QUEST B, with overall acceptance rates of 19 per cent (17 of 88) and 22 per cent (8 of 36) respectively. The QPS recruited 56 patients and 51 healthcare professionals. Patient preference was the predominant reason for declining trial entry, given by 47 (53 per cent) of the 88 patients approached for QUEST A and 22 (61 per cent) of the 36 approached for QUEST B. Both trials closed to recruitment in December 2012, acknowledging the challenges of achieving satisfactory patient accrual.

CONCLUSION: Despite extensive efforts to overcome recruitment barriers, it was not feasible to reach timely recruitment targets within a feasibility study. Patient preferences for breast reconstruction types and timings were common, rendering patients unwilling to enter the trial.

Clinical end points for drug treatment trials in BCR-ABL1-negative classic myeloproliferative neoplasms: consensus statements from European LeukemiaNET (ELN) and Internation Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT)

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.

Is the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique ready for use in clinical trials in infants with cystic fibrosis?

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society Clinical Trial Network (ECFS-CTN) has established a Standardization Committee to undertake a rigorous evaluation of promising outcome measures with regard to use in multicentre clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this article is to present a review of literature on clinimetric properties of the infant raised-volume rapid thoracic compression (RVRTC) technique in the context of CF, to summarise the consensus amongst the group on feasibility and answer key questions regarding the promotion of this technique to surrogate endpoint status.

METHODS: A literature search (from 1985 onwards) identified 20 papers that met inclusion criteria of RVRTC use in infants with CF. Data were extracted and tabulated regarding repeatability, validity, correlation with other outcome measures, responsiveness and reference values. A working group discussed the tables and answered 4 key questions.

RESULTS: Overall, RVRTC in particular forced expiratory volume in 0.5s, showed good clinimetric properties despite presence of individual variability. Few studies showed a relationship between RVRTC and inflammation and infection, and to date, data remains limited regarding the responsiveness of RVRTC after an intervention. Concerns were raised regarding feasibility in multi-centre studies and availability of reference values.

CONCLUSION: The ECFS-CTN Working Group considers that RVRTC cannot be used as a primary outcome in clinical trials in infants with CF before universal standardization of this measurement is achieved and implementation of inter-institutional networking is in place. We advise its use currently in phase I/II trials and as a secondary endpoint in phase III studies. We emphasise the need for (1) more short-term variability and longitudinal 'natural history' studies, and (2) robust reference values for commercially available devices.