795 resultados para Trials (Breach of promise)
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.
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:
Background: Critically ill patients have an increased risk of developing delirium during their intensive care stay.To date, pharmacological interventions have not been shown to be effective for delirium management but non-pharmacological interventions have shown some promise. The aim of this systematic review is to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence or the duration of delirium in critically ill patients.
Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library.We will include studies of critically ill adults and children. We will include randomised trials and controlled trials which measure the effectiveness of one or more non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence or duration ofdelirium in critically ill patients. We will also include qualitative studies that provide an insight into patients and their families’ experiences of delirium and non-pharmacological interventions. Two independent reviewers will assess studies for eligibility, extract data and appraise quality. We will conduct meta-analyses if possible or present results narratively.Qualitative studies will also be reviewed by two independent reviewers, and a specially designed quality assessment tool incorporating the CASP framework and the POPAY framework will be used to assess quality.
Discussion: Although non-pharmacological interventions have been studied in populations outside of intensive care units and multicomponent interventions have successfully reduced incidence and duration of delirium, no systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions specifically targeting delirium in critically ill patients have been undertaken to date. This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a multicomponent intervention for delirium management of critically ill patients that can be tested in a subsequent multicentre randomised trial.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The task of revising dietary folate recommendations for optimal health is complicated by a lack of data quantifying the biomarker response that reliably reflects a given folate intake.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis in healthy adults to quantify the typical response of recognized folate biomarkers to a change in folic acid intake.
DESIGN: Electronic and bibliographic searches identified 19 randomized controlled trials that supplemented with folic acid and measured folate biomarkers before and after the intervention in apparently healthy adults aged ≥18 y. For each biomarker response, the regression coefficient (β) for individual studies and the overall pooled β were calculated by using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Folate biomarkers (serum/plasma and red blood cell folate) increased in response to folic acid in a dose-response manner only up to an intake of 400 μg/d. Calculation of the overall pooled β for studies in the range of 50 to 400 μg/d indicated that a doubling of folic acid intake resulted in an increase in serum/plasma folate by 63% (71% for microbiological assay; 61% for nonmicrobiological assay) and red blood cell folate by 31% (irrespective of whether microbiological or other assay was used). Studies that used the microbiological assay indicated lower heterogeneity compared with studies using nonmicrobiological assays for determining serum/plasma (I(2) = 13.5% compared with I(2) = 77.2%) and red blood cell (I(2) = 45.9% compared with I(2) = 70.2%) folate.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies administering >400 μg folic acid/d show no dose-response relation and thus will not yield meaningful results for consideration when generating dietary folate recommendations. The calculated folate biomarker response to a given folic acid intake may be more robust with the use of a microbiological assay rather than alternative methods for blood folate measurement.
