A simulation study of the standard design, the rolling six design, the CRM, and the modified CRM in Phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is considered the "first in human" study in medical research to examine the toxicity of a new agent. It determines the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new agent, i.e., the highest dose in which toxicity is still acceptable. Several phase I clinical trial designs have been proposed in the past 30 years. The well known standard method, so called the 3+3 design, is widely accepted by clinicians since it is the easiest to implement and it does not need a statistical calculation. Continual reassessment method (CRM), a design uses Bayesian method, has been rising in popularity in the last two decades. Several variants of the CRM design have also been suggested in numerous statistical literatures. Rolling six is a new method introduced in pediatric oncology in 2008, which claims to shorten the trial duration as compared to the 3+3 design. The goal of the present research was to simulate clinical trials and compare these phase I clinical trial designs. Patient population was created by discrete event simulation (DES) method. The characteristics of the patients were generated by several distributions with the parameters derived from a historical phase I clinical trial data review. Patients were then selected and enrolled in clinical trials, each of which uses the 3+3 design, the rolling six, or the CRM design. Five scenarios of dose-toxicity relationship were used to compare the performance of the phase I clinical trial designs. One thousand trials were simulated per phase I clinical trial design per dose-toxicity scenario. The results showed the rolling six design was not superior to the 3+3 design in terms of trial duration. The time to trial completion was comparable between the rolling six and the 3+3 design. However, they both shorten the duration as compared to the two CRM designs. Both CRMs were superior to the 3+3 design and the rolling six in accuracy of MTD estimation. The 3+3 design and rolling six tended to assign more patients to undesired lower dose levels. The toxicities were slightly greater in the CRMs.^

Improving disclosure of medical errors: Including patients and family members in the disclosure process

Over the last decade, adverse events and medical errors have become a main focus of interest for the standards of quality and safety in the U.S. healthcare system (Weinstein & Henderson, 2009). Particularly when a medical error occurs, the disclosure of medical errors and its practices have become a focal point of the healthcare process. Patients and family members who have experienced a medical error might be able to provide knowledge and insight on how to improve the disclose process. However, patient and family member are not typically involved in the disclosure process, thus their experiences go unnoticed. ^ The purpose of this research was to explore how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process regarding a medical error. The research consisted of 28 qualitative interviews from three stakeholder groups: Hospital Administrators, Clinical Service Providers, and Patients and Family Members. They were asked for their ideas and suggestions on how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process. Framework Analysis was used to analyze this data and find prevalent themes based on the primary research question. A secondary aim was to index categories created based on the interviews that were collected. Data was used from the Texas Disclosure and Compensation Study with Dr. Eric Thomas as the Principal Investigator. Full acknowledgement of access to this data is given to Dr. Thomas. ^ The themes from the research revealed that each stakeholder group was interested and open to including patients and family members in the disclosure process and that the disclosure process should not be a "one-way" avenue. The themes gave many suggestions regarding how to best include patients and family members in the disclosure process of a medical error. Secondary aims revealed several ways to assess the ideas and suggestion given by the stakeholders. Overall, acceptability of getting the perspective of patients and family members was the most common theme. Comparison of each stakeholder group revealed that including patients and family members would be beneficial to improving hospital disclosure practices. ^ Conclusions included a list of recommendations and measureable appropriate strategies that could provide hospital with key stakeholders insights on how to improve their disclosure process. Sharing patients and family members experience with healthcare providers can encourage a shift in culture where patients are valued and active in participating in hospital practices. To my knowledge, this research is the very first of its kind and moves the disclosure process conversation forward in a patient-family member inclusion direction that will assist in improving disclosure practices. Future research should implement and evaluate the success of the various inclusion strategies.^