Clinical trials, informed consent, & emergency medicine: A systematic literature review

Background: In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates clinical trials. These regulations address good clinical practices as well as human subject protection (FDA, 2012). One of the most important legal and ethical concerns in clinical trials is informed consent. 21 CFR 50 governs human subjects research. Part 50.24 provides an emergency research exception to the informed consent requirement. Research was conducted to determine the appropriateness of this exception, whether the benefit justifies the exception, and its public health significance.^ Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted and articles were identified from peer-reviewed journals.^ Results: There is some variance in opinions regarding the appropriateness of the exception, but the literature reviewed found the study results of these trials justified the waiver.^ Conclusion: The exception to the informed consent requirement is likely appropriate and justified in emergency research when implemented within the specified guidelines.^

Organizational perspectives on the management and evaluation of large -scale multicenter controlled clinical trials: An exploratory study of participation in the beta -blocker heart attack trial

A review of literature related to appointment-keeping served as the basis for the development of an organizational paradigm for the study of appointment-keeping in the Beta-blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT). Features of the organizational environment, demographic characteristics of BHAT enrollees, organizational structure and processes and previous organizational performance variables were measured so as to provide exploratory information relating to the appointment-keeping behavior of 3,837 participants enrolled at thirty-two Clinical Centers. Results suggest that the social context of individual behavior is an important consideration for the understanding of patient compliance. In particular, the degree to which previous organizational performance--as measured by obtaining recruitment goals--and the ability to utilize resources had particularly strong bivariate associations with appointment-keeping. Implications for future theory development, research and practical implications were provided as was a suggestion for the development of multidisciplinary research efforts conducted within the context of Centers for the study and application of adherence behaviors. ^

A simulation study of the effects of small center enrollment in multi -center clinical trials

Multi-center clinical trials are very common in the development of new drugs and devices. One concern in such trials, is the effect of individual investigational sites enrolling small numbers of patients on the overall result. Can the presence of small centers cause an ineffective treatment to appear effective when treatment-by-center interaction is not statistically significant?^ In this research, simulations are used to study the effect that centers enrolling few patients may have on the analysis of clinical trial data. A multi-center clinical trial with 20 sites is simulated to investigate the effect of a new treatment in comparison to a placebo treatment. Twelve of these 20 investigational sites are considered small, each enrolling less than four patients per treatment group. Three clinical trials are simulated with sample sizes of 100, 170 and 300. The simulated data is generated with various characteristics, one in which treatment should be considered effective and another where treatment is not effective. Qualitative interactions are also produced within the small sites to further investigate the effect of small centers under various conditions.^ Standard analysis of variance methods and the "sometimes-pool" testing procedure are applied to the simulated data. One model investigates treatment and center effect and treatment-by-center interaction. Another model investigates treatment effect alone. These analyses are used to determine the power to detect treatment-by-center interactions, and the probability of type I error.^ We find it is difficult to detect treatment-by-center interactions when only a few investigational sites enrolling a limited number of patients participate in the interaction. However, we find no increased risk of type I error in these situations. In a pooled analysis, when the treatment is not effective, the probability of finding a significant treatment effect in the absence of significant treatment-by-center interaction is well within standard limits of type I error. ^

Identifying the semantics of eligibility criteria of clinical trials based on relevant medical ontologies

An important objective of the INTEGRATE project1 is to build tools that support the efficient execution of post-genomic multi-centric clinical trials in breast cancer, which includes the automatic assessment of the eligibility of patients for available trials. The population suited to be enrolled in a trial is described by a set of free-text eligibility criteria that are both syntactically and semantically complex. At the same time, the assessment of the eligibility of a patient for a trial requires the (machineprocessable) understanding of the semantics of the eligibility criteria in order to further evaluate if the patient data available for example in the hospital EHR satisfies these criteria. This paper presents an analysis of the semantics of the clinical trial eligibility criteria based on relevant medical ontologies in the clinical research domain: SNOMED-CT, LOINC, MedDRA. We detect subsets of these widely-adopted ontologies that characterize the semantics of the eligibility criteria of trials in various clinical domains and compare these sets. Next, we evaluate the occurrence frequency of the concepts in the concrete case of breast cancer (which is our first application domain) in order to provide meaningful priorities for the task of binding/mapping these ontology concepts to the actual patient data. We further assess the effort required to extend our approach to new domains in terms of additional semantic mappings that need to be developed.

A machine learning approach to identify clinical trials involving nanodrugs and nanodevices from ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND: Clinical Trials (CTs) are essential for bridging the gap between experimental research on new drugs and their clinical application. Just like CTs for traditional drugs and biologics have helped accelerate the translation of biomedical findings into medical practice, CTs for nanodrugs and nanodevices could advance novel nanomaterials as agents for diagnosis and therapy. Although there is publicly available information about nanomedicine-related CTs, the online archiving of this information is carried out without adhering to criteria that discriminate between studies involving nanomaterials or nanotechnology-based processes (nano), and CTs that do not involve nanotechnology (non-nano). Finding out whether nanodrugs and nanodevices were involved in a study from CT summaries alone is a challenging task. At the time of writing, CTs archived in the well-known online registry ClinicalTrials.gov are not easily told apart as to whether they are nano or non-nano CTs-even when performed by domain experts, due to the lack of both a common definition for nanotechnology and of standards for reporting nanomedical experiments and results. METHODS: We propose a supervised learning approach for classifying CT summaries from ClinicalTrials.gov according to whether they fall into the nano or the non-nano categories. Our method involves several stages: i) extraction and manual annotation of CTs as nano vs. non-nano, ii) pre-processing and automatic classification, and iii) performance evaluation using several state-of-the-art classifiers under different transformations of the original dataset. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the best automated classifier closely matches that of experts (AUC over 0.95), suggesting that it is feasible to automatically detect the presence of nanotechnology products in CT summaries with a high degree of accuracy. This can significantly speed up the process of finding whether reports on ClinicalTrials.gov might be relevant to a particular nanoparticle or nanodevice, which is essential to discover any precedents for nanotoxicity events or advantages for targeted drug therapy.

Supporting patient screening to identify suitable clinical trials.

To support the efficient execution of post-genomic multi-centric clinical trials in breast cancer we propose a solution that streamlines the assessment of the eligibility of patients for available trials. The assessment of the eligibility of a patient for a trial requires evaluating whether each eligibility criterion is satisfied and is often a time consuming and manual task. The main focus in the literature has been on proposing different methods for modelling and formalizing the eligibility criteria. However the current adoption of these approaches in clinical care is limited. Less effort has been dedicated to the automatic matching of criteria to the patient data managed in clinical care. We address both aspects and propose a scalable, efficient and pragmatic patient screening solution enabling automatic evaluation of eligibility of patients for a relevant set of trials. This covers the flexible formalization of criteria and of other relevant trial metadata and the efficient management of these representations.

Are pharmacological randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to real-life asthma populations? : A protocol for an UNLOCK study from the IPCRG

Funding The IPCRG provided funding for this research project as an UNLOCK Group study for which the funding was obtained through an unrestricted grant by Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland. Novartis has no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. This study will include data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and is undertaken in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group.

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

Objective To summarise comparisons of randomised clinical trials and non-randomised clinical trials, trials with adequately concealed random allocation versus inadequately concealed random allocation, and high quality trials versus low quality trials where the effect of randomisation could not be separated from the effects of other methodological manoeuvres.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

Purpose: To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women’s inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter. Methods: We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998–2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline. Results: Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n = 52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n = 13) and 9% (n = 7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex. Conclusions: Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus. METHODS: Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525 . Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.

Chemoprevention clinical trials : problems and solutions /

"November 1984."

What are clinical trials all about? /

Mode of access: Internet.